Talk:Michael Grimm (politician)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Protection?

I would like to edit this page to add information about Michael Grimm's political views. How can I do that? Mackabean (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Service as Police Officer

This section states he worked in a variety of capacities as a police officer or police support employee. It seems oddly organized. I can't imagine he would go from FBI Special Agent to US Marshal to FBI Police (Uniformed) to clerk. Those are in three different organizations. I'm not saying it's impossible or that he didn't, but it isn't sourced.

Michael Grimm entered the FBI as a professional support employee in 1991. In 1995, he entered the FBI Academy in Quantico Station, Virginia. He graduated as a special agent and was certified to become an undercover agent. He became a US Marshal and uniformed FBI Police Officer. He began as an FBI clerk and transitioned into undercover agent work, eventually working in the FBI Gambino Squad and was responsible for learning about the inside activities of Peter Gotti, John Gotti's brother.[3] Grimm worked for the FBI as an agent for 9 years.

--Daysleeper47 (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The first commenter is correct because despite what the source might say, no FBI agent goes on to become a uniformed FBI Police Officer (a non-agent position), and the only way he'd become a US Marshal is if he left the FBI and joined the US Marshals Service. This needs to be reordered and fact-checked.

Linux attack

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/27/ubuntu-gate/

A RS for the claim? Hcobb (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What is an RS? What is your point? The damage and the install both seem benign. Arbalest Mike (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"RS" is a Wikipedia abbreviation for reliable source. --71.183.128.251 (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Status as Attorney

A user recently added "attorney" to the summary list of Mr. Grimm's various careers. While I see that he graduated from law school, I do not see a mention elsewhere in the article that he ever practiced as a lawyer. Without this fact, I think describing Mr. Grimm as an attorney is inappropriate. Yitzhak1995 (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Overkill -- "attorney" as a common noun does not require Bar Association membership. The fact appears salient to the requirements to become an FBI agent in the first place: Law is one of the five choices for a Special Agent for the FBI. [1]. Specifically To qualify for the Law Critical Skill a candidate must qualify under the Law Entry Program (i.e., have a JD degree from a resident law school). As we mention his experience as a Special Agent for the FBI, it is reasonable to also list the specialized training he held for that job. Would you rather we just state that he holds a J.D. degree in law? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Schooling & Professional Timelines

Mr. Grimm is described as entering the marines in 1989 and deploying to Iraq a year later yet he is described as receiving his BBA from Baruch in 1994. He would have had to begin his studies in 1990 to receive the 4yr BBA degree. How could he be both in Iraq and a student at Baruch at the same time?

Also, there is no timeline of what he was doing between 2002 when he graduated law school and 2010 when he ran for political office. I agree with a previous Talk Page poster that the chronology of events (military, FBI, police,biz sch, law sch,RE investor, biz owner, etc) needs to be made more clear. As it stands now, it is confusing at best and questionable at worst. Barkway (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The timelines for the various claims still do not make sense.

2. Graduated High School in 1988
3. Active duty in the Marines starts in 1989
4. Deployed overseas in 1990
5. Starts at FBI as a clerk in 1991
6. Spent a year at Whale Securities before FBI. When could that be? As a teenager? Doing what (with only high school)?
7. When did he transition from Active Duty to Reserves? That is important regarding next point.
8. BBA in 1994 implies being undergrad, FBI clerk and in the Marines (perhaps reserves) at the same time.
9. FBI "agent for 9 years" claim ending in 2006 leaves 2 year gap. Does undercover period not count?
10. Received JD in 2003 - Implies law student while full time FBI agent? Became an FBI agent with accounting degree?

Arbalest Mike (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

We only use what the sources say -- and, yes, the FBI hires accountants as agents. [2] All applicants for the Special Agent position must first qualify under one of five Special Agent Entry Programs. These programs include: •Accounting •Computer Science/Information Technology •Language •Law •Diversified Collect (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I was not questioning what degree might be needed to become an agent. Your comment, in another section, about his law degree (versus practicing law) was regarding "becoming" an agent. My timeline issue above, is regarding being an agent and a law student at the same time. I guess that as long as Education and Career are separate sections this is inevitable. If the job as FBI clerk (or at Whales Securities) was part-time, especially in the evenings, it would make more sense in the time-line, but be less relevant overall. Arbalest Mike (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

My comment above was with specific regard to using "attorney" for a person with a J.D. degree, and did not address the issue you now raised - wherein it is clear that he may have satisfied more than one criterion to become an agent. We stick with hat sources state, and do not try using OR here to decide otherwise. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

My take for the military service is that he was always in the reserves and was going to school while serving in the reserves. He did an initial stint on active duty to attend boot camp & MOS school as reservists usually do, then transitioned after a few months to drilling reservists. He was activated as a reservist for the Gulf War with 6th communications Battalion, a reserve unit. That is common and all adds up IMHO. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough. Then the previous section would need some editing as it says "He transferred to the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve and was discharged from service in 1997". The previous sentence mentions 1994 so the time line aspect makes the "transfer" seem to come later. The corresponding citation only mentions the year of discharge so maybe this sub-sentence should be deleted: "transferred to the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve and ". The article would be better if the paragraph before that stated (and cited) something like "then returned to reserve status". Arbalest Mike (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. A reservist on active duty is still USMCR. All Marines (USMC or USMCR) sign up for minimum obligation of 8 years, although some of that time in either case may include inactive status, depending on the contract. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This is drifting from discussion of the article itself, but the article does mention "transitioning" to the reserves. Can this be technically inaccurate? The citation (Combat Veterans for Congress) leads to a page that says this: "...served 8 years in the US Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve" which reinforces "transition". Arbalest Mike (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Transition is OK, because USMCR Marines often transition between periods of active duty and drilling status depending on the needs of the Marine Corps. However, the initial obligation, or what you sign up for is a total of 8 years, so that could be 2 years active duty and 6 years reserve, or 4 x 4, etc. So the way I read this situation is he signed up for a USMCR contract, served a period of active duty to complete boot camp and MOS training, went to his drilling reserve unit (6th Comm Battalion), was mobilized as a reservist to serve on active duty for the Gulf War, and was demobilized back into the drilling reserves after the Gulf War, then completed his 8 years total obligation. This is very common. In fact, the overwhelming majority of Marines that fought in WWII were under a USMCR contract. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

arrest of fundraiser

I've restored the paragraph about the recent arrest of a fundraiser for Grimm's 2010 campaign. The material is well-sourced, balanced, and relates directly to Grimm's 2010 campaign. More details, which tie the matter to Grimm, are available from the NY Daily News[3]. GabrielF (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Grimm has not been implicated in any wrongdoing regarding the arrest of Durand. In fact Durand raised money for other campaigns as well. Unless/until Grimm is implicated in this particular issue, it's not appropriate to include it in his WP:BLP. CFredkin (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. I just saw and read the second source you provided. I agree that it should stay. Self-reverting.... CFredkin (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Grimm threatens to throw reporter over Capitol balcony some day

http://gawker.com/a-new-york-congressman-just-lost-it-on-camera-with-a-re-1511301107

Please add http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/grimm-threatens-reporter-sotu

The confrontation began Tuesday when Michael Scotto, a reporter for New York cable news station NY1, asked Grimm about a Justice Department investigation into his campaign finances. After cutting the interview short, Grimm told Scotto, "You ever do that to me again I'll throw you off this (expletive) balcony." He also threatened to "break (Scotto) in half." NY1 posted video of the incident on its website.

Grimm later issued a statement saying he was "extremely annoyed" with Scotto and doubted he was the "first member of Congress to tell off a reporter." And in fact he was probably not the only Republican member of Congress to issue a death threat to a member of the press that he disagreed with but was certainly one of the few dumb enough to get caught on camera doing so.

All over multiple news many source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.23.59 (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure there are lots of sources, but before we add a sort of Grimm fairy tale to this article about a mean nasty ogre of a congresscritter who goes around threatening to break men in half and dash them from balconies, remember we are writing an encyclopedia here and context is key. His remarks were intemperate, perhaps, but a fair reading would call it hyperbole. Jonathunder (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Anytime an elected member of Congress, any party, threatens to physically harm someone, and there is proof, that is news. It goes into the fact pattern for that elected official, especially if the Speaker's office asks for an investigation. The inclusion of the event in his Wikipedia article should be kept free of partisanship, however. Sjkoblentz (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at Jonathunder's suggestion that a physical threat issued by a government official under federal investigation ought to be considered "hyperbole," especially in this context. In any event, the article should indicate that the entire post-interview discussion was recorded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.191.182 (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Emote however you will, but edit the article dispassionately. It should also be noted the Grimm has since apologized. Jonathunder (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

An apology is not an excuse to keep the incident to be added to the article, moreover it is an additional phrase to the subsection. 83.109.2.131 (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem stating that Grimm stated "I was wrong..." and include the entire statement, but there also needs to inclusion that "In Grimm's first public statement on incident, the Congressman stated “I verbally took the reporter to task and told him off, because I expect a certain level of professionalism and respect, especially when I go out of my way to do that reporter a favor,” he wrote. “I doubt that I am the first member of Congress to tell off a reporter, and I am sure I won’t be the last.” Then the record is accurate, without emotion, without politics. Sjkoblentz (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Jonathunder (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, this incident, threatening a reporter, certainly deserves being summarized on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.49.206 (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

totally needs adding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.243.18 (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I am disturbed to see that the conservative double standard is still alive and well on wikipedia. If a Democrat had been caught on camera delivering this kind of death threat------- It would have long ago been posted word for word along with the spooky video. I quote the REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN: If you ever do this again to me I will throw off you the balcony.... and then he weirdly comes back and says "boy, I will rip you in half" But, since it is a Republican, we should just laugh it off as a funny thing. Dem congressmen say these funny kind of things all the time? Just because they are not as dumb or as full of themselves to worry about saying such things on camera doesn't mean we should single out a decent honest Republican Congressman for saying what all the other congressmen say all the time to reporters off camera????????????? Does anyone besides conspiracy nuts believe such things? The highly notable death threats that this Republican congressman made on camera to this reporter needs to be added word for word to his wikipedia page along with the strange video of it all.Lance Friedman (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There are countless places on the Internet for this kind of general political discussion, but this isn't one of them. Stay on topic, please. Jonathunder (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless you are from Staten Island, you probably never heard of this guy till you saw the viral video of him harassing a reporter. The incident after the State of the Union Speech is at least as "encyclopedic" as the high school he went to, the medals he won while in the Marines, etc. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I added this. I was surprised it wasn't included already. This was more widely reported than the "break in half" part, which is surely hyperbole. Throwing someone over a balcony? Well that's straight up gangsta. I don't see why the brief part I added is problematic. Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Cap in "History of Violent Incidents"

The "H" should be lowercase in the line: "1999 At a nightclub, brandished His service..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.50.157.152 (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources

@Tiller54, after arguing that Forbes and the Anchorage Daily News aren't reliable here, there's no way you're going to get away with arguing that an un-named source and some political director are reliable here.CFredkin (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not what was said, and you know that. A letter from a reader in a newspaper is not a reliable source. NY1's political director certainly is a reliable source and just 3 weeks ago you had no problem with said source. Tiller54 (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what you said. The fact that Begich made the 2 votes I proposed adding to his bio is not in question. In addition to the 2 primary sources indicating that, I provided 3 sources to indicate the significance of the votes. According to you, the citation to Politico was not reliable because it referenced robocalls, the citation to Forbes was not reliable because "anybody can be a contributor to Forbes", and the citation to the ADN was not reliable because it was a letter to the editor. These secondary sources were not being used to establish facts, they were being used to demonstrate the notability of the votes. In this case, an un-named source and the political director for a local news station are making allegations which may not even be factually accurate. That's not going to fly.CFredkin (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not what I said and claiming that it is is what's "not going to fly". A Politico article reporting that the NSCC are attacking a Senator isn't relevant to said Senator's bio, just like a Huffington Post article reporting that the DCCC are attacking Grimm isn't relevant to Grimm's bio. A letter to the editor is obviously not a reliable source. An article by a Forbes contributor, not a reporter or journalist, but by a member of the public, is not reliable. Anyone can become a Forbes contributor and there are thousands of them. But, none of that is relevant to this article. A named journalist and political director is clearly a reliable source and claiming otherwise is absurd. As I've pointed out, you were happy with the section 3 weeks ago, so attempting to remove it now on the basis that "one reference isn't reliable, therefore this different one isn't either" is not going to fly. Carrying over a discussion from another talk page also isn't going to fly. Tiller54 (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

No consensus for removal of long standing content. I would suggest following the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which means retaining the status before the bold edit was made and reverted; i.e. "leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made" (often called the status quo ante). --IIIraute (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I do agree with Illraute, that material that is in the article should stay during discussion, if the material was already discussed and added into the article. Also, the reasoning given by CFredkin is absurd. There is no relation between an actual news report(sourced used here) and a letter to the freaking editor(denied as being a source on Begich article). Further, the fact that CFredkin does not know that should raise questions about his many edits to BLP articles. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

this was already discussed at AN/I

[4] has a discussion on the use of the "fucking" quote. Please note the opinions of the editors at the AN/I noticeboard. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have read the previous central discussion and the edit. I can confirm that it isn't ok to include the "fucking" quote or the unnamed rumour bit. I have protected the article in the WP:BLP-compliant state rather than block people. --John (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian: "Much of the ensuing exchange is inaudible in the recording, but according to a transcript from NY1, Grimm said: "Let me be clear to you, you ever do that to me again I'll throw you off this fucking balcony."

Scotto replies: "Why? I just wanted to ask you," before Grimm says, "No, no, you're not man enough, you're not man enough. I'll break you in half. Like a boy."" [5]

"In 2011, The New Yorker Magazine reported that Grimm had been the subject of an internal investigation into allegations he abused his authority as a FBI agent in a nightclub in 1999. According to the article, written by Evan Ratliff, the incident resulted from a dispute between Grimm and his date's husband. A former NYPD officer working as a bouncer at the time said that Grimm remarked about the husband, "I’ll fucking make him disappear where nobody will find him." Grimm reportedly then returned to the nightclub twice, pulled out his gun once, and brought FBI and NYPD officers the second time." → [6] --IIIraute (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

And the point is what? Kindly read the AN/I discussion. Though you show another place in the BLP which may run afoul of policy - especially requiring "strong sourcing" for any contentious claims - where the only actual source is a New Yorker article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This matter is/was not for ANI to decide. The incident received worldwide news coverage - more than enough reliable secondary sources are available → WP:RS:

Reuters [7]

Germany:

Süddeutsche Zeitung [8]

Die Zeit [9]

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung [10]

United Kingdom

BBC [11]

The Guardian [12]

France

Le Figaro [13]

Spain

El País [14]

Antena 3 [15]

Italy

la Repubblica [16]

Austria

Die Presse [17]

Canada

The Globe and Mail [18]

Belgium

La Libre Belgique [19]

Australia

The Australian [20]

ABC News [21]

Brazil

O Globo [22]

Ukraine

Ukrinform [23]

Peru

La República [24]

Armenia

Armenpress [25]

India

The Times of India [26]

Israel

The Times of Israel [27]

New Zealand

Fairfax New Zealand [28] --IIIraute (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• To get this straight: "As for "ANI making a decision", that's clearly not what happened. There was a complaint and it was withdrawn, which is why the ANI discussion was closed."

  There was no consensus for the removal of long standing WP:RS content. Please follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which means retaining the status before the bold edit was made and reverted; i.e. "leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made" (often called the status quo ante).

  The long standing content (expletive deleted) was restored by User:Two kinds of pork, after it had been removed by User:Collect who - as evident from this talk page - did not have editor consensus for such a removal!

  There are more than enough (see above↑↑) reliable secondary sources that support the inclusion of: "...as well as threatening to throw Sotto over the balcony." - see, for example →

  Reuters: "U.S. congressman apologizes for threatening to throw reporter over balcony." --IIIraute (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I was totally unaware of any discussion that this was a bone of contention at wikipedia until today. I didn't even know there was a "fucking" quote, just that he threatened to pull a Marcellus Wallace on a reporter. I support adding the balcony toss back in as I wrote it, but I'm not married to the idea.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The concept that this was more than rhetorical as a threat was not established in any place, and the discussions established that the WEIGHT that should be given to the entire incident did absolutely not merit more than the two paragraphs which have been stable at this point. If you wish to add the balcony language, please get WP:CONSENSUS first as opposed to edit warring to get your version in the BLP. The requirements of WP:BLP are extremely strong, and thus your onus is also strong for any such claims being placed back into the BLP. The material you wish to add was not long-standing as you aver. Cheers Collect (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has been "stable at this point" - you were the editor repeatedly removing the content; e.g. here, here, here and here - and then (as pointed out by User:Carrite) the article got protected against editor consensus.

BBC: "A congressman who threatened to throw a reporter off a balcony after President Barack Obama's State of the Union address has apologised for his actions."

Reuters: "U.S. congressman apologizes for threatening to throw reporter over balcony." Both of the WP:RS are reporting about Grimm "apologizing" for "threatening" Scotto, so obviously the "threat" has been established. --IIIraute (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP the addition of contentious material requires a positive consensus for inclusion. Wikipedia is neither a tabloid nor a newspaper, and if a newspaper says something which is contentious but which is of undue weight in a BLP, then the editors here are not required to include it sans consensus. Collect (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

What "contentious material"? There is nothing contentious about the fact that Grimm threatened Scotto - the incident received worldwide news coverage, and is (as pointed out by User:TimothyHorrigan) probably what Grimm is most famous for. --IIIraute (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree, though I still feel my edit is more appropriate in terms of neutrality. Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It is your neutral (expletive deleted) version I have restored - we are talking about the inclusion of the words: "...as well as threatening to throw Sotto over the balcony." → see BBC and Reuters sources above.

This wording was removed by Collect twice, here & here --IIIraute (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I must have looked at a different version. I would like to get a rough consensus before including even the balcony part, because edit wars are distressing. Collect seems quite reasonable to me (though his posts often require me to use a dictionary) and I'm sure he would be willing to include the balcony part even if he disagrees with it. Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

To my knowledge User:Tiller54, User:DD2K, User:Nomoskedasticity, User:TimothyHorrigan, User:Carrite, User:Anonimski, User:Michaelbusch, you and me have supported the inclusion of this content. (see talk page and revision history) --IIIraute (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I saw that I was pinged by a comment here due to my earlier editing on that article. I just want to say that I still support the inclusion of the quotes, as well as mentioning the balcony, since that material is central to the incident where the journalist was threatened. It's ridiculous that the info with most important part of the event is contested like this. Anonimski (talk) 07:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You are correct, I do support the inclusion. As for inserting a version with the "expletive deleted", that's not necessary - Wikipedia isn't censored. Tiller54 (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I have now done an edit that restored the material that included the original quotes, the balcony info, and the description of the threat as a threat, due to the presented support for that version. Just describing it as a "Scotto interview" and deleting the central information about this incident is not really an improvement of the article's NPOV and general quality. - Anonimski (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Tool abuse

User:John has committed administrative tool abuse by sanitizing and full-protecting this article against consensus. His opinion of BLP applicability, while his own, is wrong. He is using tools to resolve a content dispute against policy and against consensus. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

VIDEO LINK posted by New York Times to YouTube. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

And HERE is another version. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Um -- before leaping to conclusions, please read the AN/I discussion and the current BLP/N discussions. I would also point out that youtube is generally not usable on Wikipedia as a source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

That could be sourced to the NY Times or to the TV News program/station. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

A YouTube video is perfectly usable as a source. If the NY Times puts up a YouTube video, there ya go. Carrite (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Please note that WP:RS does not apply to how the NYT operates, but it does govern how Wikipedia operates. YouTube is basically not allowed for BLPs. Collect (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS says nothing at all about Youtube, and for good reason. If Youtube hosts a video by a news organisation whose output is considered reliable, there's every reason to have faith in the content of the video. In this particular instance, the videos available from the news organisation employing the reporter whom Grimm threatened are excellent sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

[29] YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. IIRC, NBCNews "published" an audio of George Zimmerman which was later shown to have been improperly edited, as one reason why we do not use video or audio clips as sources. When dealing with living persons, the rule is that only strong sources are allowed, and thus sources which might have been edited are not allowed. We also have the obligation to write BLPs conservatively I the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ooh, fun game -- I can quote too! "However, official channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be trace to a reliable publisher." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

And I found the clip pretty much unintelligible, and it does not include the prior part of the interview -- that is it may be quite "out of context." Or could you find the enunciation clear, and that you know what preceded the clip? Cheers. The idea of RS sourcing is that we must make sure that full context is presented -- just was the Zimmerman "clip" failed. Collect (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

We do not need to know "what preceded the clip", and we also don't have to do any other investigative original research. Highly prestigious publishing houses and renowned journalists have produced secondary sources that are available to us. It is not our responsibility to scrutinise their publications, statements, and conclusions. I expect them to do their jobs properly. There are enough reliable secondary sources available to support the inclusion of this incident to this article. I would suggest using the Reuters source (written by Thomas Ferraro) here, as well as the The Guardian article here or BBC article here --IIIraute (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

FBI section

Has a lengthy section about a single anecdote which was published by one source. The last sentence unfortunately does not appear to be sourced to any other source than the original writer - and basically is a complaint that Grimm did not ask for sealed records to be made public, which is his Constitutional right. One "source" is a political opponent asking for those records to be unsealed -- which also is not proof of much at all, and is "opinion" and not a factual RS source. A second source is the exact same press release from a political campaign. And the third sure reads a lot like the same press release. In short -- the hundred word or so section rests on a sinle article, and is likely WP:UNDUE unless we wish to make an issue of every living person who actually does not do what a political opponent asks for in press releases. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

BLP concerns re recent additions

(Ping User:Collect) Hi, I saw that you still had doubts about including some of the basic info from the incident. That section shouldn't really be problematic from a WP:BLP perspective - the part about "public figures" says that notable and well-documented incidents can be included. - Anonimski (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sufficiently concerned by the tone of what has been written to request a re-write for NPOV, and I am sufficiently concerned with the sourcing to ask for a review of the sources. --John (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the sources have been reviewed pretty thoroughly (above). Is there a specific concern regarding use of a specific source? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The incident is not worth a huge amount of space in the BLP, and the requirement that "fucking" be used is likely to be UNDUE in any event. Also the part of the interview prior to the "incident" should also be sourced. The prior extant version covered the incident and met the requirements of NPOV as far as I can tell, and was deemed proper weight by a number of editors. The degree of "temper" vs. "threat" is one where we must be careful per WP:BLP else Ralph Kramden would be cited for promoting space travel. And the new re-inclusion of "allegations" by unnamed people is "right out" in the British usage. The source for the allegation bit was, by the way, reviewed and "found wanting." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a campaign platform or political magazine. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you about the last point. We definitely do not want to get into "According to X, some un-named person made an unproven allegation Y" on a BLP, however good the source appears to be this is intrinsically against our norms. --John (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The "allegations" were not done by "unnamed people". The New York Times: "Mr. Hardt (NY1's political director, Bob Hardt), in a posting on NY1’s website, wrote that this was not the first time Mr. Grimm had gotten into a heated confrontation with a reporter for the station.

“Following an interview with NY1’s Errol Louis in December of 2012, the congressman blew his top – off-camera,” Mr. Hardt wrote.

“After the interview,” he wrote, “Grimm became red-faced and started yelling at both Louis and me, alluding to settling the issue by ‘taking it outside’ with our political anchor – acting as if he were in a bar instead of a TV studio.”" here --IIIraute (talk) 05:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Your quote makes it clear that no actual "threat" occurred -- thanks for pointing out that using it here violates WP:BLP. The word "threat" has specific legal meaning which is clearly not applicable to what the person wrote. Collect (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

And I also agree with the temper vs threat portion.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

...proposals? --IIIraute (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Status quo ante -- and getting back to rational WEIGHT in a BLP for what appears to be far more a matter of temper more than of any actual threat to murder anyone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Follow the sources, please: e.g. from the NY Times, "delivering unusually vitriolic threats against a reporter"… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

And that in what way refers to the Bob Hardt source which does not use the word "threat" and which attributes no actual threats to Grimm -- which is the issue here -- the use of anonymous allegations about "threats" one of which clearly does not use the term "threats." It is not up to editors here to "interpret" things in sources -- if the Hardt reference does not use the term, we can not attribute it to him. "Heated confrontations" are not "threats". Cheers. (The NYTimes only uses "threat" with regard to the Scotto incident) Collect (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't paid attention to the section header, which makes it clear we are discussing the Scotto incident here. If you want to discuss a separate incident/issue, best to do so in a different section. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No need, I've changed the section header. I share Collect's concerns. --John (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, here, Nomoskedasticity was referring to the Scotto incident, in regard to Collects' claim "...what appears to be far more a matter of temper more than of any actual threat to murder anyone." - to which Nomoskedasticity replied: "Follow the sources, please: e.g. from the NY Times, "delivering unusually vitriolic threats against a reporter"…"

I am sorry, Collect, but your claim appears to be completely unsourced original research - also, I don't think anyone is claiming that Grimm threatened to "murder" Scotto - I don't know where Collect got that information from - however, Grimm "physically threatened" Scotto, "to throw him over the balcony" - that is a fact.

Please refrain from basing your argument on investigative original research, or other unsourced personal interpretation and conclusions. Highly prestigious publishing houses and renowned journalists have produced secondary sources that are available to us. It is not our responsibility to scrutinise their publications, statements, conclusions, and professional work. I am convinced they are doing their jobs, research, etc. properly. There are enough reliable secondary sources available to support the inclusion of this incident to this article.

BBC: "A congressman who threatened to throw a reporter off a balcony after President Barack Obama's State of the Union address has apologised for his actions."

Reuters: "U.S. congressman apologizes for threatening to throw reporter over balcony."

Los Angeles Times: "Rep. Michael Grimm apologizes for threats; reporter won't press charges. A reporter who was physically threatened by a member of Congress while conducting an interview after Tuesday night's State of the Union address says he has no plans to press charges."

Daily News: "The U.S. Capitol Police won’t seek charges against Staten Island Rep. Michael Grimm for threatening to throw NY1 reporter Michael Scotto off a Capitol balcony. The police dropped the case after Scotto told them he had no interest in pressing charges."

The New York Times: "Representative Michael G. Grimm of Staten Island, once considered a rising star in the Republican Party, touched off a political firestorm after delivering unusually vitriolic threats against a reporter inside the United States Capitol building on Tuesday night, just moments after the State of the Union speech."

"threat" (definition): "A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done." A threat is: "a statement of an intention" - and that statement was done - regardless whether Grimm really intended to put his statement in action, or not - he "threatened", i.e. he made "a statement of an intention" to Scotto, in retribution "for something Scotto had done", and to "not do it again" in the future - as otherwise, he is going to "throw him off a balcony"; in other words, Grimm made the statement of an intention to inflict physical harm on Scotto in retribution for Scottos' past actions, as well as with the intention to influence Scottos' future actions - that certainly "is" a threat, and there is absolutely no other way to describe it. --IIIraute (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please, source after source indicates this was an idle threat, indicative of someone who lost his temper. Let's not make this more than it really is.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

...so, you are saying he was not trying to influence Scottos' future actions? A lawmaker, who physically threatens a reporter "not to ask investigative questions"! I am sure you have a source for your "idle threat" theory. --IIIraute (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Grimm, by all RS accounts is a hothead. A simple search of his name with "hothead" will show you plenty of sources making that assessment. He's not a sociopath, and I'm troubled by attempts here to paint him as such.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyway! I think I've made my point - let's hear some other editors opinions. --IIIraute (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No-one is calling him a sociopath (I'm certainly not). It's a simple matter of pointing to what multiple sources have had to say about this issue. If he's a hothead in general, fine. But this incident is widely described as one in which he threatened Scotto. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

And the existing language in this article for some time was clear about the matter which is not a major life event, and should not get more than a couple of sentences. And the side bit about allegations simply does not have sufficient weight for being in the article at all. But it appears that two editors are anxious to portray Grimm as homicidal, and the sources do not back up that inference, so we can not use it. Collect (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC for Michael Grimm (politician)

There is a slight dispute regarding this biography article's presentation of an incident. In a recorded interview, the politician Michael Grimm displayed intimidating behavior towards the journalist Michael Sctto, and multiple news sources described the behavior as threatening. However, it has been hard to reach consensus on how to describe it, and the opinions can be divided into two groups:

The "add" side

• Description of the incident as "Threats against journalist Michael Scotto" (the word "threat" can be found in multiple news sources)
• Inclusion of the quotes, as they were said. ("I'll break you in half, like a boy" and "Let me be clear to you, you ever do that to me again, I'll throw you off this fucking balcony")
• Slightly more detailed description of the event and the context surrounding it

The uninvolved Admin view

• I have read the previous central discussion and the edit. I can confirm that it isn't ok to include the "fucking" quote or the unnamed rumour bit. I have protected the article in the WP:BLP-compliant state rather than block people. --John (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The "reduce" side

• Description of the incident as "Scotto interview"
• No inclusion of what was said, but a description of that instead
• Shorter description than suggested by "add" side

On the "reduce" side, some concerns arose about a possible breach of WP:BLP, and was presented as an argument against the "add" side. I couldn't personally find any problems though, because it seems to allow descriptions of well-sourced incidents/scandals for public figures (and this incident was also recorded).

Because of the disagreement here, I have now placed a request for comments, in order to find out what others think about this... Anonimski (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note this has been discussed in the past at WP:BLP/N (the most applicable noticeboard) with the consensus there being that BLPs are required to be written conservatively, and that Wikipedia is not a tabloid. The points made by the OP here are slightly misleading as to the issues involved. The status quo ante clearly covers the story without getting to UNDUE weight, and that remains my position. Emphasizing that a politician said "fucking" is not really encyclopedic, and there is no evidence that Grimm assaulted people by killing them, thus it appears the weight given by the stronger reliable sources is more than sufficient. Second: titles of sections must be NPOV and should never be stated as an accusation of anything about the subject of the BLP. Third: The statement as to the position I hold is that :

"*=====Scotto interview====="

On January 28, 2014, NY1-TV political reporter Michael Scotto was interviewing Grimm in a balcony-hallway of the U.S. Capitol building, asking him about his thoughts on the just-ended 2014 State of the Union Address. He then tried to question Grimm about his campaign finance controversies. Grimm stated that he would only discuss the State of the Union speech, and not the investigation; as Scotto started to mentioned the investigation again, Grimm walked off. Scotto then turned to the camera and implied that Grimm didn't want to face the issue on-camera. Grimm then appeared to intimidate Scotto, saying that he would "break (Scotto) in half", as well as threatening to throw Sotto over the balcony.

Grimm issued a statement defending his behavior, saying that he was annoyed by what he called a "disrespectful cheap shot" from Scotto. "I expect a certain level of professionalism and respect," Grimm said, "especially when I go out of my way to do that reporter a favor." The next day, Grimm contacted Scotto to offer an apology for his behavior, which Scotto deemed to be sincere. He also issued a written statement apologizing for his behavior, saying, "I shouldn’t have allowed my emotions to get the better of me and lose my cool."

References

Is of fully sufficient weight for the incident, contains sufficient information appropriate for an encyclopedia article about Grimm, and not just about the interview, and is in accord with WP:BLP in all particulars. Unless,of course, the goal is to violate WP:NPOV for particular politicians. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• The incident clearly involved a threat by Grimm against Scotto -- not least insofar as multiple good sources described it as such. I also note that a good deal of space is given to Grimm's own words responding to criticism of his actions -- and so it's reasonable also to quote what he said in the first instance. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think Nomoskedasticity summarized my thoughts very well. A simple statement describing the incident, including what was said (which was a threat), Grimm's reluctance to apologize, and finally, his apology. It is, in general, very relevant and informative for factual and documented incidents like this to be recorded in Wiki pages on political leaders. 173.160.49.206 (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The article as it currently stands has "sufficient weight" as Collect correctly points out. We are not in the business of pushing hyperbole to satisfy the bloodlust of editors who take umbrage with biographical subjects. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

District numbering

The current 13th district has zero overlap with the former 13th -- the numbering system is arbitrary, and thus "successors" are meaningless when the districts are different totally. NY could have numbered the district as 25, but that does not mean the new 25th district has any relation to the old one. The only logical answer is to call it the 11th district - formerly the 13th district. I trust this clears up confusion about who is in what district, when. Collect (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a big box at the bottom of the article that says he was succeeded by Rangel.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Also wrong on that basis. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits because, to be frank, you are wrong. Regardless of how the districts overlap, this is something that does not only affect Grimm but also every other Rep on Wiki. This is not a page issue but an issue that has to do with the general format. If you feel strongly, please try to adjust the default format with the Wiki admins and not try to experiment on Grimms page. I understand what you are saying logically, but physically your changes look ridiculous on the page itself. Please, again, do not revert my recent edits or I will report you for vandalism. - DONALDderosa (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You are asserting what is a falsehood. Congress counts time from being sworn in -- and does not give a damn about "seat number" and when New York lost two seats, two districts ceased to exist. Rangel's seat has absolutely no connection in any way whatsoever with Grimm. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not really sure what you mean when you say "seat number." These "seat numbers" have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Clearly, Rangel's seat does not have a connection with the current congressional seat Grimm holds. There is something you need to understand, and that is that while Grimm held what was the 13th Congressional District, Rangel succeeded him in the district number. What you are not understanding is that on Wiki, the successor is not so much of the physical boundaries of a district but of a number. - DONALDderosa (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC on "succession" in Congress

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should district numbers be used as sole determinants of "predecessor" and "successor" in a biography where the district numbers involved have zero overlap with the district of the predecessor or successor? In the case at hand, the 13th district currently has no overlap with the prior 13th district, and the current 11th district has no overlap with any of the districts 14 through 19 in New York State. 20:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Yes That is the current status of the vast majority of congressional articles. Changing said requires a more broad discussion than this. See, for example John_Dingell, John Conyers, countless others. Hipocrite (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• No I find it difficult to see any rational basis for referring to predecessors or successors where there is no overlap between the old and new constituencies. In contrast Ed Balls is noted as having represented two different constituencies even where there was some overlap between them after the constituencies in the area were all redrawn. If lots of others might also be affected perhaps a more far reaching RFC should be considered. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 21:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Isn't this the same question as asked at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting. If it is, that would be the best place for this conversation. AIRcorn (talk) 07:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes and no -- the question here applies to this article - and (AFAICT) the consensus at the general template is fairly clear. Collect (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• No Where "predecessor" and "successor" have no actual connection with the officeholder in any meaningful biographically-relevant manner, use of such "information" is of no value to the reader. Where "information" is of no value, such "information" should not be placed before the reader - encyclopedias are intended to provide actual information of use to readers. Collect (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Question: how does the press handle it? Did they say he was going after so-and-so's seat, or was it considered "the new 13th district?" If it's the former, then use the determinants. If it's the latter, then don't. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Old Discussion

Where no reliable source makes such a claim (specifically, the New York Times in zero articles has referred to Charles Rangle as "successor" to Grimm) then WP:RS governs, and not any mechanical rule sanctifying the district number as defining a Congressional District. Wikipedia out never be in the position of stating in Wikipedia's voice that which is nt claimed by any reliable source at all. Collect (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Old Survey

• 'Use specific reliable sources for such statements and not make mechanical claims based on numbers which get totally altered by redistricting every decade. If we make an absurd claim (i.e. that Charles Rangel succeeded Michael Grimm in Congress, we lose any semblance of believability as an encyclopedia. In cases where substantial overlap has occurred, then we can note it to the exact extent noted in reliable sources only. Collect (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This notion that Wikipedia will loose its credibility is very radical. I ask, once again, that you please revert your edits until this can be solved by an administrator. That is not to strenuous of a task to ask.- DONALDderosa (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

When a claim is made in Wikipedia's voice that is risible and not supported by any reliable source whatsoever thenWP:BLP actually requires the removal of that claim. The existence of "silly claim by virtue of Wikipedia editor OR" (That is, simply referring to district numbers without any common sense noting when the result is ludicrous) is not a protected class of claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• The real problem is that Collect is not even internally consistent. How could Rangel be a problem if "Preceded by Clarke" is not? There's obviously some odd ulterior motive here, or Collect is being monumentally sloppy in his edit warring. Either way it's time for Collect to walk away. Hipocrite (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Saying an editor has an "odd ulterior motive" is not assuming good faith and not supported by the evidence. Collect's reasoning seems clear to me. If there's no reliable source saying Charles Rangel succeeded Michael Grimm, it doesn't belong in this article. Jonathunder (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Either there's an odd ulterior motive or he's being monumentally sloppy. You pickem. Hipocrite (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

That is one of the strangest attacks ever seen. I recognize Rangel's name as not belonging - perhaps you do not watch the news? Rangel is in Manhattan. Manhattan != Staten Island. My "ulterior motive" is to avoid ludicrous "facts" on Wikipedia. There are absolutely ZERO reliable sources saying Rangel succeeded Grimm. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

And Yvette Clarke? Are you just not aware of who she is? Hipocrite (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

She's from Brooklyn. Is this relevant somehow? Are you selling us a bridge? Jonathunder (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Carefully review the article. Why is Rangel so unacceptable if Clarke is fine? Was Collect being incompetent or duplicitous? Hipocrite (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Read RP:V. And note WP:NPA for G-d's sake! The only person I specifically noted was Rangel -- that does not mean other errors are not to be found, only that the particular one was so egregious and not found in any reliable source whatsoever that it leapt out at me. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Collect seems to get under the skin of several editors. My only complaint with him is I need a dictionary when reading his comments. However I think you are being unreasonable in this case. Collect and others are correct that we should use sources to determine succession/precession. That is how encyclopedias are made.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If Collect isn't engaging in specifically duplicitous behavior, he'll revert to the status quo, and take this to the appropriate wikiproject to see if there's a global consensus for how we deal with redistricting (hint: there is, and it's how the article used to be). Perhaps he'll try to change the consensus. If he is just playing "conservative activist," (queue Collect insisting he's not a conservative activist) then he'll just yell "SOURCES SOURCES BLP BLP" more, which seems pretty much 100% irrelevant to how we deal with redistricting in infoboxes. Hipocrite (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

See [30]. The New York Times is generally recognized as a reliable source. I find your desire to engage in pure personal attacks a tad tiresome. Collect (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC at Template talk:Infobox officeholder

To cover the more general case of the RfC here. Collect (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

External links

Binksternet is wrong in his reverting the use of the DMOZ template. I highlighted the relevant phrase of WP:ELMAYBE below:

Links to be considered

Shortcut: WP:ELMAYBE.

3. A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page. Many options are available; the Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the DMOZ at DMOZ template.

As anyone can plainly see, there is no requirement for only one link, or an ongoing discussion about EL in the article, or anything else he might try to claim in future. Articles which use the DMOZ template in EL also list any official links, followed by any major resources. For example, a country might list its official government site, the CIA World Factbook link, the link to the current Chief of State and Cabinet Members list, and the DMOZ category. Wikipedia has NEVER required or even suggested that all links be deleted and replaced with the DMOZ template. Binksternet himself was part of the "consensus" which decided which of the fields in Template:CongLinks were important enough to remain. Now he's telling a very different story. He is edit-warring. See this, which explains the group's rather odd determination to remove all links to such things as complete campaign contributions, voting records, statements, writings, appearances on C-SPAN - in short, the non-partisan, non-cherry picked, non-spun information available for politicians. People come to Wikipedia to find information, not the lack thereof:

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 3#Template:CongLinks

• Delete (preferred), alternative is refocus and substitute, and mark the template substitute-only if kept. Some of the links are relevant for many congresspersons and candidates, and approach WP:ELYES unless already used as a reference. Among the documented tags:
  • congbio, congress: approaches "Official" and likely to have information which can and should be used
  • ballot: marginal; it is a quasi-wiki; not always relevant
  • fec: reliable, but not always relevant
  • govtrack, opencong, opensecrets, legistorm, followthemoney, ontheissues: generally reliable, usually not relevant
  • c-span, rose: Quasi-search results
  • imdb, nndb (sorry, that one's not documented), worldcat: Usually not relevant
  • bloomberg, guardian, nyt, wsj, washpro: much like a search result.
• My second choice (after an outright delete) would be to substitute only the congbio, congress, and fec links, and then delete and repurpose the template to a substitute-only use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)71.23.178.214 (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

  The article already has more than a few external links. What from the DMOZ link, that's not already included in this article, do you feel justifies adding it? --Ronz (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

What an odd question. Did you read WP:ELMAYBE? Did you follow the links at DMOZ before you posted your question? Clearly, they're all relevant to the BLP, as he is notable for being an elected politician at the federal level. Perhaps you're not familiar with the role of Congress and U.S. Representatives? Things like their voting and statements in Congress? The campaign process? It's quite difficult to know where to begin when you claim no familiarity or competence with the subject, the person, his notability, or any relevant sources.

Current EL:

• Official website
• Michael Grimm for Congress
• Biography at the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress
• Financial information (federal office) at the Federal Election Commission
• Legislation sponsored at the Library of Congress
• Profile at Vote Smart
• Michael Grimm on Facebook

Current DMOZ category:

• Congressman Michael Grimm - Official site of U.S. Representative Michael Grimm from New York's 11th district, Republican party.
• Ballotpedia - Michael Grimm - Wiki about the New York politician, from a libertarian, free-market perspective.
• Biographical Directory of the United States Congress - Michael G. Grimm - Short biography along with political party, years of service in Congress and bibliography.
• C-SPAN Video Library - Michael Grimm - Videos and transcripts of appearances on C-SPAN.
• Congress.gov - Rep. Michael G. Grimm (New York) - Information on sponsored and cosponsored legislation. From the Library of Congress.
• FEC - Candidate Summary Reports: Michael Grimm - Official campaign finance reports and data from the Federal Election Commission.
• GovTrack.us - Rep. Michael Grimm [R-NY11], - Legislative profile and bill tracking. Represents Richmond County, Bloomfield-Chelsea-Travis, Richmondtown, New Brighton, Oakwood, Ettingville, Westerleigh-Castleton, Midland Beach and parts of Gravesend-Sheepshead Bay, New York, Kings County.
• NNDB - Michael Grimm - Formatted profile of the New York politician.
• On the Issues - Michael Grimm - Provides quotes and background on various international, domestic, economic and social issues. Includes profile, contact data, forum and voter match.
• OpenCongress - Rep. Michael Grimm, New York (R) - Latest votes, sponsored bills, videos, news and blog posts.
• OpenSecrets.org - Michael Grimm - Career profile of campaign funds raised and spent.
• Project Vote Smart - Michael Grimm - Provides a biography, committee assignments, campaign finances, voting record, issue positions, interest group ratings, speeches and public statements.
• Roll Call - Rep. Michael G. Grimm (R-New York) - Profile, election history and collected news reports.
• Washington Post - Capitol Assets: Rep. Mike Grimm - Personal financial portrait and official disclosure forms, including change in wealth while in Congress and assets by industry.
• Washington Post - Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.) - Provides collected news along with a profile, why he matters, his path to power, his issues and his network.
• Washington Post - The US Congress Votes Database: Mike Grimm - Features complete voting record along with a brief biography, roles in Congress and financial disclosure statement.
• Wikipedia - Michael Grimm - Crowd-sourced encyclopedia article about the New York politician.

71.23.178.214 (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing odd asking, "What from the DMOZ link, that's not already included in this article, do you feel justifies adding it?" After all, what we care about most is the content provided with the links.

Of course, when we look at that content, we then should compare it to what is already provided in the article and the article's references.

Further, anything not redundant should be examined against WP:EL and our content policies.

In that light, what' so important about the link? --Ronz (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

iow, you stull an't be bothered to actually check out the links, can you? You only have time to "challenge", based on zero knowledge and competence on the topic, edit-warring for the sake of edit-warring. Why is that? Why are you so adamant that such things as a sitting Representative's voting record, and floor statements should be concealed from readers? Why are are you refusing to recognize WP:ELMAYBE? In short, why are you refusing to respond to my questions of substance, but simply repeating your generic demand that I "prove" that such information is relevant and important? Passive-aggressive bullying is still bullying, Ronz. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Why do you constantly push against the external link guideline which says that incrementally greater scrutiny should be applied to each new external link? The guideline was written so that the article body would be where the information is held, not the external links. If you cared so much about voting records and floor statements then you would add those to the article body in the form of prose. Binksternet (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Leave it out then per WP:ELBURDEN, as it is at best unclear if it provides anything at all of value. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I now have all the diffs I need. Binksternet's statement that cherry-picked voting records and floor statements are allowed, but non-partisan collections of all such is somehow "banned" by Wikipedia Guidelines, illuminates his true goal. Ronz's insistence that the importance of such information as voting records and floor statements is "unclear" does the same. Time for their wiki-filibustering to end. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I said "unclear" in the hope that some time evidence might be presented of its value. Perhaps I should have said simply that there is no demonstrated value in the link? --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

How did you pull "cherry-picked" out of my suggestion, which mentioned nothing of selecting certain aspects to the detriment of others? How did you did you determine that my argument is partisan whereas yours is not? We both agree that the reader should have access to non-partisan information. I see the external links guideline as intended to limit the number of external links, obviously to prevent the article from being an uninformative stub but jammed with a ton of external links, forcing the reader to surf around to find the information. Instead, our articles should contain a summary of all relevant and topical information, including voting records and floor statements. These should be presented in prose form in the article body, or list form if appropriate. If partisanship is seen in any article it should be dealt with in the usual fashion, by going to the talk page first, then with increasing levels of dispute resolution. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"Summarizing" voting records and floor statements, by definition, is impossible to do in a completely non-partisan fashion. Blocking a complete list is blatantly partisan. Your earlier excuse for External links and Further reading was that such things as voting records can't be listed because they "change over time". Now you're claiming this Wikipedia article should list of all of the Congressman's votes and all of the Congressman's floor statements? And the same for every other member of Congress? Well, unlike you I don't live in LaLa Land. If and when you and Ronz are willing to follow the Guidelines, we can discuss. So far, the two of you have done nothing but play games. As I said, I now have quite the collection of diffs to show what you've been trying to accomplish here. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

For those following along at home, Ronz has now requested that Wikipedia Admin Arthur Rubin, an editor of long standing at DMOZ, block me for adding a link to the relevant DMOZ category, using the long-established DMOZ template, as explained in WP:ELMAYBE, in order to provide in-depth information, such as complete voting records. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arthur_Rubin#User_71.23.178.214_back_to_behavior_that_resulted_in_block 71.23.178.214 (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

As one who is playing along at home (and has been lurking at this article for quite some time), I have to agree that the EL to a DMOZ category page is not at all useful or encyclopedic for the reasons already stated, and because this is no longer 1995.- MrX 18:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the calendar, if not on the topic. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It kind of is. DMOZ currently has marginal value as an index, and it's not a place that we should be sending readers for more information about a subject. It's essentially self-published, which makes it even less useful. I have not yet seen a convincing argument for including the link.- MrX 18:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Please expand on your 1995 thoughts, especially the "self-published" part. Is that supposed to refer to Arthur Rubin or AOL? Or both? I assume, as you're claiming "marginal value", that you have carefully reviewed the links in that DMOZ category and don't believe the public needs to know about such "irrelevant" things as voting records and floor statements. Perhaps we could find some Hot or Not site for politicians for you, or perhaps something focused on what constitutes "good hair" for a politician. Perhaps ET as a source? Is that the sort of "more information" you would find relevant? Is that why you find my argument not "convincing"? 71.23.178.214 (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

How about we just leave the link out until a convincing argument is made to include it per ELBURDEN? A convincing argument would clearly identify the value of the link as already mentioned above. --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you have repeatedly refused to engage in the topics of voting records and floor statements, why don't you define what would constitute a "convincing argument" for a "valuable link"? Based on the arguments here and at the Deletion discussions for NGOLinks, JudgeLinks, GovLinks and CongLinks, I'd say it's clear the group of you want the External links section limited to the Congressman's official U.S. House site, and possibly his official campaign site. iow, the two sites guaranteed to be written by, for, and about the Congressman himself. I suggest you all read WP:BLP and consider why we don't allow articles to be written which are 100% dependent on the subject's own websites. iow, the actual meaning of "self-published" as opposed to whatever MrX was trying to claim (as I assume he wasn't claiming Michael Grimm himself chose the links in his DMOZ category). Whatever you claim to be a "consensus", you do not get to change every political article into a hagiography, with nothing but a few cherry-picked factoids. Ronz, our repeated threats on my Talk page to block me for pointing out the obvious is not going to work. Wikipedia has Pillars. They are the foundation, and you are not going to blow it up. End of. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI. --Ronz (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Link inserted a sixth time - One in favor, three opposed

@71.23.178.214: has again inserted the DMOZ link claiming "No consensus to delete long-established WP:ELMAYBE link out.". What I find puzzling is that there does seem to be a consensus here to omit the link, with 75% in favor of omitting. Also puzzling is 71.23.178.214's claim that the link is "long-established", which is dubious given that he inserted the link just over a month ago here. I would invite 71.23.178.214 to explain why their editorial preference should overrule consensus.- MrX 14:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The numbers don't matter. ELBURDEN says links stay out unless there is consensus to include them. This is just edit-warring by the ip. --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, well. I see Ronz deleted my post on his Talk page. I also see MrX is pretending WP:ELMAYBE isn't long-established, and furthermore that the EL Guideline is simply my personal "editorial preference". He also joins Ronz in pretending voting records and such are "not relevant" for politicians? Wow. So let's repeat my point (yet again) and see if anyone can explain this "not relevant" argument, shall we? Because WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.

Ronz, I have asked you and your "friends" numerous times, on numerous Talk pages, to explain why you insist things such as voting records, statements on the floor of Congress, campaign contribution, etc., etc., etc., are "not relevant" in articles about U.S. politicians. NOT ONCE have any of you provided a real response. All you do is smirk and bat the ball back over the net, demanding I convince YOU that such things are relevant. You think that's cute? It's not. This has gone on long enough. Time for you to explain yourselves and act like adults. If not, accept the consequences. You are NOT going to destroy Wikipedia as an educational resource for our readers. And if any of you are found to have been doing this "cleansing" for money...this isn't going to stop with Wikipedia. Is that clear?

71.23.178.214 (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

How about dropping the hyperbole, misrepresentation, and attacks? --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@71.23.178.214: WP:ELMAYBE provides guidance for the types of external links that may be included in an article, but it certainly does not require them. As has been previously stated, "The burden of providing this justification [for inclusion] is on the person who wants to include an external link." Grimm's voting record and campaign contributions are available at the fourth listed link. You have failed to convince anyone that the DMOZ link should be included, so either seek outside dispute resolution, create an RFC, or kindly back away from the horse.- MrX 18:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the fourth link (Project Vote Smart) does NOT provide what you claim. PVS provides only 'key votes', not a complete voting record, as it clearly explains. The Washington Post provides a choice of all votes or what it considers key votes, along with additional voting information. PVS uses Open Secrets for its campaign finances section, but only one cycle and it's for 2012. Open Secrets has the 2014 data, but PVS doesn't show it. (If Grimm had earlier campaigns, Open Secrets would provide numbers as well, but PVS doesn't do that). You left out "statements on the floor of Congress" - that would be C-SPAN. Did you forget, or do you find that "not relevant" for an elected politician representing the public? Or did it just not fit in your defense of Ronz and Friends? Anyone familiar with political sources knows what each does and doesn't provide. I have not "failed to convince anyone" for the past several months about these sources, they have failed to engage in an adult discussion, preferring to endlessly repeat Arthur Rubin's "not relevant" claim with no actual explanation. So now it's your turn to explain your part in this, why you're making excuses for Ronz and claiming "the fourth link" (odd, not to simply say "Project Vote Smart") is sufficient when it's not. Did you follow the PVS link yourself to see what it contained? If so, then how did you manage to overlook what I just pointed out? And why do you continue to ignore WP:NOTDEMOCRACY? I'm not going anywhere until I get an answer. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

So you're making a case for OpenSecrets being added? --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not convinced that we need to link to websites that have amassed every bit of minutiae about the subject. The external links should be a few carefully curated resources for readers to learn more (not everything) about the subject. In fact, I think the links to the campaign website, the biographical blurb, and the Facebook page should also go away, but I would probably be on the losing side of consensus if I pursued their removal.

To answer your questions: I did not forget; I reject your premises -- I'm not defending anyone and I'm not making excuses for Ronz; Yes I followed the PVS link, but I did not pore over every bit of information there; there is no reason to link to every bit of information about the subject -- readers can use Google if they need that information; I'm ignoring WP:NOTDEMOCRACY because it's not relevant to this dispute.

Now my questions for you: Why do you refuse to accept consensus? Why are you so obdurate about linking to DMOZ instead of directly to the most valuable websites? Do you have a conflict of interest with respect the the subject of the article?- MrX 16:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

First, I suggest you actually google Michael Grimm and cross-reference those to the links in DMOZ before you make such rash recommendations for our readers. Next, please read WP:ELMINOFFICIAL regarding Facebook, which is linked from his official site and therefore should not be listed. I did not bring it up myself (although I've deleted plenty of Facebook and Twitter links over the years for that reason) because I wanted to show this fixation is on the sort of links DMOZ contains, not EL in general. This "group" first tried to delete Template:CongLinks. Plastikspork got cold feet and suggested reducing the links. The immediate "consensus" was to keep the least useful links (they were useful in conjunction with the others, but certainly not on their own) and delete the rest. All attempts at discussion on the template's Talk page were steamrollered. Ballotpedia provides similar links, and the group was adamant it must remain deleted. Now the focus is on deleting DMOZ. This isn't about DMOZ itself, but the links it contains. My personal preference would be to restore the earlier version of Template:CongLinks and skip DMOZ - or as you put it, link directly to the most useful links. You might want to ask Arthur Rubin (should be easy enough for you to do) why we found all if them "not relevant ". Well, except for Project Vote Smart, which he didn't mention at all, and was therefore left in. I've simply gone through the alternatives to see the response to each. To summarize: not in EL, not in Further reading, not in DMOZ. The latter was in response to the claim there were "too many" separate links. Okay, then that leads us to WP:ELMAYBE regarding DMOZ: well, I was going to quote that bit, but I see you unilaterally deleted it. NO talk page discussion, let alone inviting others. Quite a novel way to achieve "consensus", isn't it? Just delete the inconvenient Guidelines, eh? Then you can claim WP:NODEMOCRACY isn't relevant. Wow. Looks to me as if you're up to your neck in this. Along with your "input" on the American politics workshop, you're looking pretty suspect, aren't you? Project Vote Smart went into dire financial straits this year, you can google the news for it, and now we "coincidentally" have concerned Wikipedians who, after more than a decade, "suddenly" have a problem with everything useful in External links - except Project Vote Smart. Well, any "consultant fees" they, or any other group, might have paid had to be filed by April 15. This is June. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Please take a deep breath and try not to take this content discussion personally. I did indeed make the BOLD edit to the WP:EL, which has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. There is no disagreement about whether policy or guidelines allows for a DMOZ category to be linked from the external links section of an article. The discussion at hand is whether there is consensus or not to do so in this article. There is not. You can continue to seek consensus, but ranting and engaging in personal attacks is not likely to win you any converts.- MrX 20:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

MrX, I find it very sad that rather than responding in a factual way to my factual points about the links we're (purportedly) discussing, you choose to throw a tantrum. Using the now-familiar Binksternet Defense, you play the "consensus" card, even though I've shown it wasn't based on actual facts about the actual links. Now you've posted what appears to be your actual problem with DMOZ: personal. Someone here is indeed "ranting and engaging in personal attacks", but it isn't me. I responded to the quite absurd claims you made at 16:36, 3 June 2014. Rather than admit you "misspoke", you childishly lash out at me. Wrong answer. I repeat: Until those claiming "consensus" can explain why such things as complete voting records, statements made on the floor of Congress, campaign contributions et al are "not relevant", I'm not going anywhere. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox discussion

[31] explains why we do not say Grimm was "succeeded by" Charles Rangel.

Consensus is reasonably clear that successor or predecessor should not be used in infoboxes where significant redistricting has taken place.

Where the use of "same district number" is used for determining "predecessor" and "successor" in any office, but where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value, the word "redistricted" should be used rather than using names of officeholders whose connection is accidental by virtue of district number, but unrelated to any election contests between officeholders. Template:Infobox_officeholder

I trust this is clear. Collect (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not clear. That doesn't explain why all other house members such as Yvette Clarke were not changed as well. If that was the consensus, it needs to be applied to all the other members pages not just this one. TL565 (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" is a very weak argument. It would be quite up to you to demonstrate that Rangel regards himself as Grimm's "successor" - and I would cordially note that the New York Times specifically does not make any such claim about Rangel succeeding Grimm. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is it weak if the argument is about consistency? If the consensus is clear, why were all other house members articles who were redistricted not changed as well? I don't see the big deal about Rangel succeeding Grimm anyway. Grimm was in the 13th district, then it moved to where Rangel was. The district number is absolute. This happened to many other representatives. Therefore, it is not ridiculous to say that Rangel succeeded Grimm in that numbered district. It's 2+2=4, you don't need a source for that. TL565 (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

TL565, the RfC mentioned above discussed exactly this issue, with Rangel and Grimm as being a primary example, and came to a clear conclusion. Look at this this way: Rangel and Grimm were both in the House before the election, Rangel and Grimm were both in the House after the election. Rangel lived in Harlem before and after, Grimm lived in Staten Island before and after. How does it make sense to say that one succeeded the other? The nature of congressional redistricting means that sometimes you can't define a clear line of succession. When that happens, it's best to leave it out. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

And that's the only example? What about Yvette Clarke, Gregory Meeks, Peter T. King, Steve Israel, Nydia Velázquez, Jerrold Nadler, Carolyn Maloney, Joseph Crowley, José E. Serrano? All these people were in the house before and after the elections. The consensus unnecessary, confusing, and inconsistent. If it were so crystal clear, there wouldn't have been so many problems about this in the past. TL565 (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention on Chuck Schumer's page, it says Rangel succeeded him in 1983 in the 16th district in the same exact situation. TL565 (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course Rangel isn't the only example. All these cases should be changed to "redistricted". We have separate articles on every congressional district, so if the reader wants to know the succession chain for a particular numbered district, she can go there with one click. But it is pointless and misleading to put this chain on the member articles, because it is meaningless from a biographical point of view. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case every house rep's info box is going to say "redistricted" "redistricted" "redistricted". You guys are over complicating things that don't have to be. There is nothing wrong with the original "Preceded by Succeeded by" layout. There will always be redistricting. Just because a consensus was made doesn't mean it wasn't flawed. TL565 (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Only a very small number of districts are so altered as to make "number usage" difficult - If a state keeps the same number of districts, the lines are generally changed slightly. When a district is eliminated, then you run into the problem of a new "number" bearing no connection to the prior number of the district. One should note that the Congress itself does not use those district numbers. Collect (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You're being way too technical. The 13th district in question is absolute. It doesn't matter if it's in a completely different area after redistricting. The 5th and 6th districts are also in completely different areas than before. It is not absurd or misleading to say that Rangel succeeded Grimm in the 13th district. This is the way it has been for years. Nobody had a problem with it until you did. If succession is pointless, then having it say "Preceded by redistricted" is also pointless. You still did not address my points above. TL565 (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

"Successor" implies that the person succeeded a person in office. Where the number of the district is, in fact, of no legal significance in Congress, and Congress does not count the person as being a "successor" to a person who is still holding the same office as before, then the use of numbering is asinine here. The goal is to show who actually replaced an officeholder, and anything else is fatuous. Cheers - note this discussion had the same result each time it occurred. Collect (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you NOT see my examples above? If you are so passionate about this argument, go ahead and change the hundreds of representatives pages past and present already. TL565 (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you not note that it is not up to anyone to fix everything? I already have more than three thousand pages watchlisted, over 37,000 edits, and have participated in more than a dozen Wikiprojects, so asking me to add another thousand articles will not work. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Succession in the infobox

Why is Rangel always being removed from the infobox? Every other house member who went through redistricting is listed in succession just fine. Why is this article the only case? TL565 (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you can show me any election in which the two people appeared contesting the same seat? The change at the template documentation is clear, and was unopposed. If you wish to propose reversing that RfC, kindly try, but trying to ram absurd edits into any BLP does not, frankly, impress me a heck of a lot. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed others have asked this question before and you still can't answer it. Why is Rangel completely unacceptable and everybody else fine? You seem to be the only one who is making a big deal about this. The consensus does not explain the inconsistency with other representaves. TL565 (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Mainly because the redistricting was to account for a reduction in total NY representation - and the numbering of the changed seats had nothing to do with anything connecting Rangel and Grimm. I suggest you read the RfC involved at the template page, as well as the discussions here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Succession box

Consensus for the use of the succession box was achieved at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6#Template:NYRepresentatives. Please do not revert again until the end of the discussion at Template talk:Succession box#RfC. Any arguments for or against the present state of things may be made there. In the meanwhile, consensus should be respected. Rules for infoboxes do not apply to succession boxes, and vice-versa, they have different purposes. Kraxler (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That discussion in 2009 did not deal with succession boxes, the consensus was for deletion of that template - and that deletion was apparently overturned. Please find sources which deal with the actual topic at hand - which is whether we should give totally useless and misleading information to readers about who "succeeded" anyone. Personally, I think making claims on the order of the famed "You are in a helicopter" information for the MicroSoft anecdote [32] comply with "I knew that had to be the MICROSOFT building because they gave me a technically correct but completely useless answer." Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: "That discussion in 2009 did not deal with succession boxes" - please re-read the bottom part of the discussion. The question of succession and succession boxes was discussed there. It was resolved that the old mega template would be deleted, and at all articles where no succession boxes had been added, the Template:USRepSuccessionBoxNeeded should be added as a placeholder for later addition of a succession box ( Template:USRepSuccessionBox ).

Re: "the consensus was for deletion of that template - and that deletion was apparently overturned" - You're wrong again. The old template remains deleted. In 2012, Tony The Tiger used the same name for a different template which shows now only links to the articles on the districts as numbered. Admins can possibly see what it looked like in 2009 when the previous version was deleted. It was 68 kb long, containing about 1900 names.

I ask you again a direct and simple question: Do you dispute the logic behind articles like New York's 13th congressional district which combines all those congressmen who were elected in the district with this official number in one list? A simple yes or no would suffice. Kraxler (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep any further discussion unified at your RfC at Template Talk:Succession box, the abovementioned question was already added there and may be answered there. Thanks. Kraxler (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You started this here - and it is disingenuous for you to ask rhetorical questions where you know the answer. Any student who writes in a term paper that 'Charles Rangel succeeded Michael Grimm in Congress' would get an "F". Clear enough? Collect (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. The question was Do you dispute the logic behind articles like New York's 13th congressional district which combines all those congressmen who were elected in the district with this official number in one list? Yes or No?

By the way, certainly the student would get an F, that affirmation would be ludicrous. I already stated that the succession box does not make any such statement ("succeeded in Congress") I'll repeat again: The succession box (as traditionally used for years, at all other Congressman articles) would say Michael Grimm occupied a seat in Congress to which he was elected in New York's officially numbered 13th district until 2013, and Charles Rangel has been sitting in Congress since 2013 after having been elected in New York's officially numbered 13th district. Imagine a chair with number 13 painted on it. Until 2013 it was occupied by Grimm, now it is occupied by Rangel. Could we agree on that? Both are still sitting on a chair, Grimm's now has an 11 painted on. The succession box does not describe the area of the district, it refers exclusively to the number. Kraxler (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Anything which results in nonsense is bad. Saying Rangel "succeeded" Grimm is nonsense. Congress itself does not use arbitrary district numbers. Period. Nor are chairs of congresspersons numbered by "election district" - in fact members of a state delegation are not generally seated together - making "numbering of chairs" totally useless. Rangel is not seated at the seat Grimm formerly occupied. Is that actually clear? [33] Members of the House have no assigned seats. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I see talking about this is pointless. Collect is just going to keep ignoring everyone and bring up something that has nothing to do with the main point. It is ridiculous how much discussion there has been over a little template. This was never an issue since the start of Wikipedia until now. TL565 (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

And since the RfC at the infobox page was clear, and it appears you are quite alone, and the RfC at succession seems headed the same way, and since you have followed through on your threat on my UT page to Again, Your opinion not fact. I have yet to see any source that backs up your argument. Rangel/Grimm isn't any more blatant than the others. How many times must it be said, it is about the number of the district is why they are connected. This is the way it has been from the start. I find it strange you suddenly took issue to it this year. Where were you all those years before? Right now, I am tempted to change the articles back to the way they were before until a real decision is made. is a clear attempt to threaten to undo my edits - which you have now done - seems contrary to WP:CONSENSUS, I fear the concept of AGF with you is wearing a tad thin, indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope, the RfC at the infobox was obviously not clear. It's funny how you say I'm alone. Multiple people have already pointed out the obvious but you keep putting your head in the sand. I have not heard from anyone else seriously on this issue but you. You started this mess and are the only one who has a problem what has been in place since the beginning of Wikipedia. A dubious discussion was not consensus. TL565 (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Um -- The RfC at Infobox officeholder [34] had 16 supports and 2 opposes (one of whom is blocked indefinitely for socking and abusive editing) over a period of more than six weeks. Say 16 to 1. Pretty reasonable call that there was a consensus at that point. Would you like to see an RfC run for more than six weeks? Or is 16 to 1 not indicative of a likely consensus per the cloer statement Consensus is reasonably clear that successor or predecessor should not be used in infoboxes where significant redistricting has taken place? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You know what, you're right. I don't know what came over me. We were all just imagining in our heads that there was problem with this article compared to the others. Who cares if it is inconsistent? Who cares what has been in place for years until now? Collect knows best! I should never dare question the powerful intellect of Collect ever again. Where would Wikipedia ever be without Collect to set things straight? You are 100% right as always, my apologies. TL565 (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Please do not mix apples and oranges. Infoboxes are not succession boxes, and vice-versa. Period. Could we agree on that?

"Imagine a chair with number 13 painted on it. Until 2013 it was occupied by Grimm, now it is occupied by Rangel. Could we agree on that? Both are still sitting on a chair, Grimm's now has an 11 painted on." That is a metaphor, please consult Wikipedia or an English teacher to know what that is.

There are about several thousand congressmen bios with infoboxes used in a certain manner. These were added by numerous editors, all of whom agreed to use them in this manner. You are the only editor who questions this, and about two others have supported you. So the vote count stands at roughly 5,000 to 3. So much for your vote count of the infobox RfC.

Well, I'm not a student, I'd like to make the following affirmation: "Charles Rangel succeeded Michael Grimm as a man who was elected in a district with the official number 13." I'm certain to get an A for that, but you better ask some teacher about it. Please ask some teacher about it, do not come up with your own opinion, I know that already.

The district numbers are official, used under NY election law. Thats biographically relevant. It's a fact. See my sources appended at the affirmation.

If one congressman retires, and two others run at the next election without re-apportionment or re-districting, one of thos will succeed the retired man, and they might never have met in their whole life. Your argument about biographical relevance doesn't make sense under any circumstances, but as I said before, succession boxes serve a different purpose, check it out at the ongoing RfC. Kraxler (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

(od) If the district contains a substantial number of the same electors, then one officeholder per may well "succeed" another. Where the electors ain't the same, the claim of 'succession' is simply false. Is the point clear? In a biographical article it is reasonable to require relevance to the biography. If the claim is not remotely relevant to biographical value, all it is, is a self-referenced useless tidbit of information not found in any actual reliable source. Clear? Collect (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Well, the electors are never the same, even without redistricting: some old electors die, some younger people vote for the first time, and—it not being obligatory to vote in the US—some people vote at one election and don't at the next and vice-versa. It's impossible to ascertain, without checking the actual voters' lists at the poll stations, how many of the electors of one election are the same at the next one. I'm still waiting to see you come up with one, just one, argument that makes sense. Did you ask a teacher about my well sourced statement? Apparently not.

We're still talking at cross purposes. You say something about one thing (biographical content) and I'm talking about something else (succession box). While they are somewhat related here at Wikipedia, they are not at all the same. Could we agree on that? Kraxler (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the case at hand shows ZERO voters in the two district overlap. This is not a "maybe" issue, it is an actual issue. And "elector" means any person qualified to vote, not just those who vote. I am amazed you were unfamiliar with the common term. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"Qualified to vote" requires to actively register and at some times it was required to re-register at every single election. It's not just living in the district that makes you an elector. But all that is irrelevant. You ask your teacher about my well sourced statement, and then come back. Please note that in the election returns, certified by the Board of Elections, the area of the district is never mentioned. The only thing that identifies the district is the number. Kraxler (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

All news multiple media that he has pled guilty to tax evasion and is now a felon

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/nyregion/rep-michael-grimm-to-plead-guilty-to-tax-charge.html http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/pelosi-boehner-should-force-michael-grimm-resignation-n273686 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/23/ap-sources-nyc-congressman-to-plead-guilty/

Update to reflect criminality immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.16.108 (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope. No one is a felon until convicted and all appeals are exhausted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's now sourced that he pled guilty to tax evasion. However, I don't know for sure the exact text of the charge, so I haven't changed the lede yet. Also, he hasn't been sentenced yet. Superm401 - Talk 19:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT, the NYT description of the exact charge is correct. Collect (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The statement that someone is a felon until their appeals are exhausted is false. You are a felon when convicted. Hipocrite (talk) 13:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hipocrite is correct. Once you are convicted, as a matter of law, you are a felon. When Grimm is sentenced in June 2015, his conviction will be recorded and, at that time, as a matter of law, he is a convicted felon. Kenneth Lay died before his sentencing. Given that Grimm is not dead, the Lay case is irrelevant. Your citing of a Missouri state case is irrelevant, too, as a matter of federal criminal law. What is done in Missouri state courts has no bearing on Grimm's criminal conviction. Siberian Husky (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The law cases cited are clear - and apply to Federal cases as well (background is Common Law), in case you doubted that. In June, Grimm "will be a felon" as you indicate but we are not in June yet. For some odd reason, law is not the same as what newspapers print - it has its own niceties, and I will defer to anyone here with a JD, otherwise using case law seems accurate. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Read more. Convictions are not final until appeals are exhausted. In case law, a person dying pending appeal is "not convicted"[35] [36] noting the abatement of proceedings against Kenneth Lay where his death required vacating the conviction, etc. Or ask NewYorkBrad. Kenneth Lay, per law, was not a "felon." Collect (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The judgement has not currently been appealed, any any such appeal has not been successful, and he is not dead, and as such he is currently a felon. Hipocrite (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No sentence has been issued to appeal from. And your prescience that "any such appeal has not been successful" before any appeal has been made is navel-gazing crystal balling. Cheers -- as I said, ask NYB or show your JD or show case law. Otherwise, any editor's assertion about the law sans any cites is pretty wertlos. Also Kenneth Lay was not dead either when his appeal started. Was there a reason you wish to beat a dead horse when you have not provided a single example of case law on the subject to support your assertions nor have you even stated you have a JD. Collect (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Your abject credentialism is absurd, and a some random lawyer is not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It is better than absolutely zero sources which appears to be your position. Can you offer cites for your blanket assertions at least? Collect (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the New York Constitution says that a seat in the Legislature is vacated upon conviction for a felony. Speaker Mel Miller lost his seat in 1991 upon conviction in federal court, and later the conviction was overturned on appeal, but he didn't get his Assembly seat back. On the other side, in the case of Eugene Rodriguez who was convicted of perjury and attempted grand larceny it was clarified that the seat is vacated not at conviction but only at the time the sentence is pronounced. It seems to follow that someone may be a felon from the time he was sentenced for a felony and may return to be a non-felon after the previous conviction was vacated on appeal. Kraxler (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

References

• Of course he's a felon. Among other points, this isn't Italy; the argument was absurd enough when it was made regarding Berlusconi, and there's no reason to pay any attention to it here. It's a very curious point in any event: can one possibly appeal a guilty plea? That would surely take some real cheek. In any event: the real way to settle this is to rely on an impeccable reliable source, which leaves no doubt as to his "new status". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

RE "can one possibly appeal a guilty plea?" That's a really interesting question. Usually, and this is the case here, guilty pleas are part of a plea bargain: the prosecution comes up with twenty counts of something, the defendant pleads guilty to one, that saves the prosecution a lot of time and money, and a conviction is obtained. Usually the prosecution should then drop all other charges, and the court should hand down a sentence previously agreed upon. The court is however not bound by the bargain, it could hand down a much severer sentence. If that happens, the defendant could rescind the bargain, and appeal, not being cheeky, but trying to save his hide. The prosecution would then bring the previously dropped charges again... So, fact is that as long as no sentence is pronounced, Grimm being a felon or not, can not be forced to resign. And as long as we don't know the length of his prison sentence, if there will be one, nothing will change with his work in the House, felon or not felon, or am I misunderstanding the text of our impeccable source? Next step due on June 8. Merry Christmas. Kraxler (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The plea stipulates 33 months maximum sentence - if the judge seeks a higher sentence, it appears such would be, in fact, appealable. Possibly arcane, but that is how law works. Strangely enough, a judge given a "guilty plea" can in fact make almost any decision he wishes. Collect (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

If he appeals the (eventual) sentence -- who cares? He'll still be guilty -- a felon... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

And note that Kenneth Lay is not a felon. Interesting quirkiness of the law. Collect (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

RE Nomoskedasticity - The question is whether, if the court hands down a sentence much beyond the one stipulated in the plea bargain, the defendant can change his plea to not guilty, and appeal the conviction too.

RE Collect - In the case of Kenneth Lay, the conviction was explicitly vacated by the judge who was going to sentence him. So you are absolutely right that Lay is not a felon. But had the judge a different option? Or would "De mortuis nil nisi bene" apply forcibly? Quirkiness describes the situation quite well. Merry Christmas. Kraxler (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The Common Law goes back such that no judge could have ruled differently. One may also note many debts die with the debtor. Note also that a judge in such a circumstance can sua sponte acquit or find guilty of a lesser charge - "Plea bargains" can be quite slippery creatures. Collect (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there a specific edit we are talking about or just a general discussion? TFD (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Read first sentence in section. He likely will be a felon, but as the saying goes "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" and Wikipedia can afford to wait (WP:DEADLINE) before jumping the shark. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no reasonable basis for dispute here. He is a felon now -- something verified by an impeccable reliable source [37]. All of the speculation in this section is quite pointless. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I am glad you find the NYT to be the exact same thing as a court. It makes one have real confidence in a publication that once had a correction abut a living person: An article on Monday about a recall election facing Colorado lawmakers who supported gun-control legislation referred incorrectly to one of the Republican challengers expected to face John Morse, the State Senate president, on the ballot. The candidate, Bernie Herpin, is a former city councilman, not an author of erotic novels. (Jaxine Bubis, a novelist turned politician, has dropped out of the race.) Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

If you have concerns about the reliability of the NYTimes for this particular point, I think you know where you can place that concern. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not think we would normally refer to someone as a felon unless that was their career, but more likely we would say criminal. The term felon is confusing, It had a specific meaning in common law, but now different jurisdictions define it differently and most do not use the term at all. TFD (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

New York Times is very questionable as a reliable source. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times is neither "very questionable" nor "impeccable". It is a top reliable source for dates and events. It is to be taken with the utmost caution when the journalists try to paraphrase legal or technical stuff so that it could be understood by the lay reader. Thus, there can't be any doubt about the date and the actual event when the Times says "Yesterday Mr. X pled guilty to...". It may be already doubtful to what he pled guilty, since "grand larceny" (the legal term) is not as popularly appealing as "extortion" (a popular term). The legal consequences of a conviction are probably beyond the comprehension of most newspaper editors, most of them not being lawyers. Conclusion: Stick to the facts, and avoid transcribing opinions or speculations from newspapers. And, publishing a correction actually makes a source more reliable under WP:RS, it confirms that editorial oversight and fact-checking are used continually. Happy New Year! Kraxler (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been on numerous military operations in which the NYT has gotten both the dates and the events wrong with no corrections ever published to set the record straight. I know it is questionable source...my statement is not based on an opinion. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Your personal experience does not remove The New York Times as a reliable source in the eyes of Wikipedia. Grimm is an admitted felon, having pled guilty. Binksternet (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

My comment is in response to NYT as a reliable source, and not to the charges of this case. Perhaps the NYT is considered acceptable as a reliable source in the eyes of Wikipedia, but many across the globe consider it questionable. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

RE FieldMarine I have been on numerous military operations in which the NYT has gotten both the dates and the events wrong - You mean you expect your enemy to read in the New York Times about your exact position and strategic decisions? Come on, you would be dead already... Happy New Year! Kraxler (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not say "exact position and strategic decisions", although they get those wrong too, even after military provides that type of information in press releases. What I said was "dates and events", which was in direct response to the above comment that the NYT was a "top reliable source for dates and events". With respect to, "You would be dead already", not all military operations are combat operations. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok. You have your opinion, and experience, and I have mine. Trust me, I don't believe everything that's written in a newspaper, not even the NYT, but, taken in context,and checking whether other sources agree, the NYT is a quite good source. I think I've used it as a reference several hundreds of times already in my articles. And I think I chose not to cite it as often. Happy New Year! Kraxler (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - I have actually used the NYT too on occasion. I personally do not take it as gospel, and as you mention, bounce it off other info. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Succession box, again

• Come on, Collect, now the box makes the absurd claim that Grimm is representing two different districts at the same time, being incumbent of the 11th and the 13th district. You don't mean that, or do you? Since the RfC at Template talk:Succession box#RfC has not been closed yet, and currently suggests an outcome of "no consensus" (= no change), I suggest you read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please. On the other side, at the last ArbCom election, some have found fault with my lack of experience at the drama boards. So, maybe I should take the hint, and make my first ANI report about the situation here, to get more ample input.
• RE Dcmcnut: offices under the same header are always listed chronologically, no need to introduce an exception here. Kraxler (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• • Nope -- and I suggest you actually obey AGF here -- the discussions were lengthy and extensive at the template talk page, and the strong consensus was that using Wikipedia to make SYNTH claims not specifically made in any reliable source was a problem. Find me an actual RS source saying "Rangel succeeded Grimm" if you wish me to take this seriously as a cavil. And filing an AN/I report because you disagree with an RfC close is outré. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• • • I don't think Collect understands how American politics works as yes Grimm was redistricted but someone had to be redistricted into Grimm's old seat and that man was Congressman Rangel. In no other article on wikipedia have I ever seen it say just 'redistricted'.SleepCovo (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Did you read the Template:Infobox politician and talk page about this exact issue? I find your position incomprehensible. Collect (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

My dear Collect, we're talking about succession boxes here. Re "because you disagree with an RfC close is outré" Template talk:Succession box#RfC has not been closed yet. That's a fact. Please be aware of the distinction between infoboxes and succession boxes. Could we agree on not confusing these two in the future? Kraxler (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

My dear Binksternet RE "consensus is to avoid such nonsense" - there is no such consensus. Please read the still unclosed Rfc about succession boxes. Most of those who opined did not think that the long-standing manner in which the succession boxes are used here was "nonsense". I suggest you avoid uncivil edit summaries. Kraxler (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• • • • The case at hand is not about the silly succession boxes - but about the use of Template:Infobox officeholder which did indeed reach a strong consensus as noted by the close of the RfC there: Consensus is reasonably clear that successor or predecessor should not be used in infoboxes where significant redistricting has taken place. Clearly this does not affect minor redistricting examples, but where substantially no parts of the two districts overlap, the fact is that claiming otherwise is not supported by that clear consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The edit war is going on at the succession boxes, and there is an open RfC. The infoboxes are stable so far. Succession boxes are not infoboxes, but I'm willing to ask people at ANI about it, since the RfC seems to have been inconclusive. Succession boxes serve for cross-referencing, but I've explained that already many times at different venues. Nobody in hios right mind would suspect that Grimm was succeeded in Congress by Rangel, seeing the infoboxes. It is clear that Grimm is still sitting, they just changed district numbers. Now, to claim that Grimm is at the same time incumbent in two different districts is beyond belief. Kraxler (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

For almost any guideline there will be cases where following it blindly leads to an absurd result. Saying Grimm represents two districts at once (and is about to resign from one of them) is just silly. Jonathunder (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"Let me be clear to you. If you ever do that to me again I'll throw you off this f***ing balcony." (again)

I thought we had a workable compromise from almost a year ago about this matter. Are people so in love with the "fucking" that they think it absolutely needs to be in the article? If so, why? We certainly can't use "f***ing" here. --John (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I was not involved in the discussion from a year ago, and I'm not aware of a consensus to sanitize this content. Briefly quoting exactly what Grimm said is the most honest, neutral presentation. Why do you assert that we "certainly cant use f***ing here"? - MrX 11:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, he didn't speak in asterisks -- he said "fucking". So I agree we shouldn't use asterisks either. I also agree that previous discussions were inconclusive at best. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree we shouldn't use asterisks. I took John's comment to mean he objects to any form of "fucking".- MrX 12:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The multiple prior discussions were clear -- the use of "fucking" or "f***ing" is gratuitous, is antithetical to the primary principle of WP:BLP which is based on not deliberately harming people, and is simply a sophomoric exercise. And not reading prior discussions is not really a great thing to claim - we have archived discussions readily available. (it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.) Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Link please?- MrX 12:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I take it you never actually read WP:BLP? I would have thought the provenance of my precise quote from WP:BLP was easy to determine. Collect (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty familiar with WP:BLP in both theory and application, given that I have written a couple dozen BLPs and edited hundreds more. I've also read all of the discussion on this page as well as a failed ANI report. None of them indicate a consensus for euphemizing Grimm's comments. You wrote "The multiple prior discussions were clear". This implies consensus. Would you kindly link to these multiple prior discussions where a consensus was reached? Thank you.- MrX 13:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

OK -- you never actually had read the policy? I have edited thousands of BLPs at this point, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed ad nauseum before, and the non "fucking" version has been in place for quite some time. Those that are keen on restoring it are violating BRD. Are we going to discuss, or is this going to be a tag team revert up to 3RR? Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 14:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussing ad nauseum is not the same as reaching consensus. Is there any reason why no one can point to this consensus so we at least have a basis for this discussion? Absent that, then let's agree that there is not consensus for either version.- MrX 14:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that the long standing version of some text is the consensus version by default. If you want to have ths converstaion again, then let's have it. But I suggest you look to the archives from around March of last year. I think there was an RfC on the subject.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 14:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There aren't any archives on this page, and there's never been an RfC on this topic. Anyone who says there's a consensus on this issue has a bridge to sell. So, see below. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC re "fucking balcony"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In early 2014, Grimm threatened a reporter by saying, "If you ever do that to me again I'll throw you off this fucking balcony" (source -- and of course there are many others). In reporting on this incident here, should we quote Grimm or paraphrase him? 14:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Quote -- there's no doubt about the veracity of the reports regarding what he said, they were covered in a large number of good quality sources, and I've seen no good reason to refrain from telling readers what he actually said. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• Quote him - The quote is short and very notable. The video clip and media coverage of his colorful threat has been widely publicised. The most accurate and neutral way to present this content is in Grimm's own words. To do otherwise raises question of neutral POV.- MrX 14:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Use paraphrase There is no encyclopedic value nor any value per WP:BLP to repeatedly insist on using fucking in every possible location other than to reinforce the belief that Wikipedia is intrinsically sophomoric. WP:BLP makes clear that the goal of BLPs does not include proving how evil any person is, or how badly they speak, but that Wikipedia should avoid causing harm to anyone. The desire to stress fucking is amusing perhaps, but does not belong in any fucking encyclopedia article. [38] Reuters in fact says only "Much of the recording is inaudible, but NY1 published a transcript of the exchange in which it said Grimm also told Scotto..." showing that Reuters (a reliable source per se) did not ascribe the quote as "fact" but only an allegation by NY1. Where the highest level sources do not make the claim, it is improper for Wikipedia to make such a claim. Listen to the video and tell us that you made out the words clearly [39] Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• Use paraphrase I agree with Collect. While certainly relevant to this page, including "fucking" in an encyclopedic article doesn't make sense when the intention and effect of the quote can be delivered through paraphrase. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• Use paraphrase per above. Very little is to be gained by using the quote. NPOV and BLP does not require us to display a subject's heat of the moment boorish behavior in living color. I can't see any other reason to include this other than to shame the subject, or to use this as tool in a grudge between editors. Both of those reasons violate a number of wikipedia precepts. If there are other valid reasons, I'm willing to reconsider. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 20:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• Use paraphrase. While our project is not censored, we are enjoined to write about living people "responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone" and include criticism and praise "so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone". I think the asterisks formulation was a non-starter because it broke both; the "fucking" formulation seems to me to break BLP's advice about tone, even although the sourcing is there to support it. --John (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with John's reasoning and would support the use of a paraphrase. MastCell ^Talk 00:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• Use Paraphrase. John puts it best. The quote is not necessary. Tanar Aerdoth (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• Paraphrase. Just say something along the lines of "In 2014, Michael Grimm threatened to throw a reporter off the balcony", without quoting the actual phrase at all. It sounds more encyclopedic that way in my opinion. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 02:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• Paraphrase An encyclopedia is not in need of sensationalist bombastic actions to attract the paying/advertisement-reading public. Much to the contrary, it is supposed to give information in a serene and succinct manner. The quote is unnecessary, and tends to antagonize a wide range of readers. Also, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS (see # 1 "Wikipedia is also not written in news style."): whether the newsmedia use the quote or not is irrelevant, it's misplaced here. Kraxler (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• Quote I wouldn't consider the quote as "news". Seems pretty relevant to me considering it was published in multiple reliable sources. Paraphrasing the quote would not give the reader the full understanding of what was said and his intensions. If we were to paraphrase, what would be added? Meatsgains (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
• Paraphrase. Two reasons. One, the actual quote is pretty much irrelevant to the story, which is that he threatened the reporter. Which is more meaningful and encyclopedic, that he said F*&^ or that he threatened the reporter? Two, unless you have rock solid evidence of the EXACT words that he said, it is a violation of WP:LIBEL to quote someone. If you are going to say explicitly that person X said "Y" then you better damn well be sure that he said "Y". Since sources have clearly stated that the audio was not clear (obviously to get past possible libel issues) we cannot in good conscience quote him explicitly and it serves no purpose to qualify the quote that it may not be accurate. Arzel (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
• Quote Its more accurate and since what was said was reported it should be easy to source. AlbinoFerret 00:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Reuters states "inaudible. Guardian[40] states "inaudible" (" Much of the ensuing exchange is inaudible in the recording, but according to a transcript from NY1, Grimm said: "Let me be clear to you, you ever do that to me again I'll throw you off this fucking balcony" -- looks exactly like Reuters from here) Even the slightly partisan "DemocraticUnderground"[41] states "Much of the conversation is inaudible in the recording, but according to a transcript from NY1, Grimm said: "Let me be clear to you, you ever do that to me again I'll throw you off this fucking balcony." " (Gosh - channeling Reuters again - with the same disclaimer!). RawStory[42] "Much of the conversation is inaudible in the recording, but according to a transcript from NY1, Grimm said: “Let me be clear to you, you ever do that to me again I’ll throw you off this fucking balcony.”" (what a fucking coincidence - all these sources use the exact same wording Reuters used - and make the same comment that the words are on the transcript according to NY1, and channeling the exact same distancing of themselves from the inaudible recording!) Collect (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Quote him. Summoned here by RfC bot. Easy call. Wikipedia is not censored. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• Paraphrase, notified of this per RfC. Reasoning by Collect appears to be sound, and one which for this question I support.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Quote is much better but include the disclaimer in the form of inline text attribution - might also check transcripts from actual interviews. Don't blindly accept anything. Check it and check it again. Atsme☯^Consult 00:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Factual comment which seems to contradict the premise of the RfC - which is neither neutral in tone nor even accurate in its claims:

Note: the audio is unintelligible and the Reuters article did not ascribe the quote as "fact" but only as something in a transcript of an inaudible video. Collect (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Other sources say otherwise:

"The Staten Island Republican ended the interview and walked away, then returned to tell Scotto, "Let me be clear to you, you ever do that to me again I'll throw you off this fucking balcony." "
— New York

" “Let me be clear to you,” he said in a low voice, before using a profanity and warning that he would hurl Mr. Scotto from the balcony."
— New York Times

" "Let me be clear to you. You ever do that to me again and I'll throw you off this f---ing balcony," warns Grimm."
— Fox News

" "Let me be clear. If you ever do that to me again, I'll throw you off this f---ing balcony," Grimm told Scotto in the much-broadcast clip of the encounter. "You're not man enough, you're not man enough. I'll break you in half. Like a boy." "
— People

..and there are many more like it.- MrX 15:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Your only problem is the Reuters source does not make the claim as fact in Reuters voice - and that was the inaccurate premise of the RfC. In addition, can you aver that you personally can make clearly out the words on an inaudible recording? And that it is in no way designed here to harm Grimm in any way? (I trust you now accept that my quote from WP:BLP was not a fake? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You're mistaken; the premise of the RfC is that numerous reliable sources quote the profanity in question, Reuters being an example. Since MrX has provided a number of other sources, it's not really relevant to keep attacking him on the Reuters source. It would be more helpful to discuss the available sources as a whole. As I'm sure you know, we use reliable sources and attach no weight to individual editors' auditory perception of a film clip, so I would prefer you stop demanding the latter.

As to the question at hand—whether to quote Grimm's use of profanity—it is reliably sourced but not necessarily appropriate for inclusion, for a variety of reasons including sensationalism. I would generally defer to John's view here, since I find him quite reasonable about this sort of thing, and would support a paraphrase, mostly so that everyone can move on with their lives. MastCell ^Talk 18:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Reuters specifically dos not make the quote in Reuters' voice. It ascribed the quote to NY1 and specifies that the recording is "inaudible." Are you good at listening to "inaudible recordings" in the first place? Collect (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, Reuters is not the only source for this material; there are many others, which should address your concern. And it makes no difference what individual pseudonymous editors think they can hear, since Wikipedia is based on reliable sources rather than editors' personal auditory perceptions. MastCell ^Talk 17:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Which would be fine except that Reuters specifically distanced itself from the claim. I suggest your adamant refusal to accept that is intriguing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Original research and a cherry picked source are not good foundations for a convincing argument. Perhaps it's time to DROPTHESTICK here.- MrX 14:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Cherry picked? Snark there -- as there are a large number of "reliable sources" which accidentally happened to use the exact same wording as Reuters. I suppose it might simply be coincidence, but "cherry picked"? Not. Collect (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting really tired being accused of snarking when all I am doing is expressing disagreement with your argument. Please stop it.- MrX 15:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Collect's response also isn't really a response to the point that "Reuters is not the only source for this material". Collect's response was about Reuters; again, the point is that there are many other sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Above I pointed out that a large number of the reliable sources quoted Reuters' disclaimer quite precisely and exactly. If you do not wish to notice use of exact same wording as indicating that the sources used Reuters, then I wot not what to say. I find using the exact same wording to indicate that the source used the source which specifically used that wording in the first place. By the way, the snark that ALL the other reliable sources are "cherry-picked" is inane and inapt on an article talk page. Clearly your mileage varies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Facepalm. MastCell Talk 23:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Snarky facepalms do not actually advance discussions about what sources actually state, last time I checked. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC) There is no evidence in this thread that you've actually read or digested what anyone else has said. That makes further discussion frustrating and unproductive. I don't think you're in a position to lecture anyone about how to advance discussion; your refusal to listen to others is the main impediment. MastCell Talk 00:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC) There is no evidence in this thread that you've actually read or digested what anyone else has said is one of the worst personal attacks I have ever seen, but I suppose you will try to outdo yourself <g>. At this point in your life, you should be well aware that name-calling is not going to impress anyone at all. Collect (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC) "Name-calling"?? I don't see any name-calling in Mastcell's post. What is the name you have been called?? If anything, I think we now have further evidence of difficulty with reading comprehension. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC) As I have not only read all the material, but discussed all of it, the accusation that I did not "digest" any of it is an attack, and your snark seems unworthy of anyone on an article talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC) But what is the name you were called?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that actually states all these reporters from all these agencies were present, and actually heard the comment, or are they just all jumping on the bandwagon based on a report of an attack on one of their own? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Listen to the video. Note that the earliest sources (Reuters etc.) specifically attribute the exact quote to the transcript provided by NY1. Note that some editors seem to rely on the ones which do not attribute the quote to that transcript. Tell us what exactly you hear or do not hear. No other reporters were present to hear the exchange, so all we have is the transcript and that video. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Collect is suggesting that other editors engage in an obvious form of WP:OR. This is bizarre. We'll do better to stick to core Wikipedia policies. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting using the earliest source is "original research"? That seems a very strange concept indeed, and one which I cannot find on any policy page in all of Wikipedia.. Collect (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You have a ridiculous habit of trying to put absurd ideas into the mouths of other editors. My meaning is plain, even if not to you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Prior discussions for those who forgot they have seen the same issue over and over and over, with invariably the same result:

1. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive196#Michael_Grimm_.28politician,
2. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive199#Michael_Grimm_.28politician,
3. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive197#Michael_Grimm_.28politician.29_query.
4. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive243 has removal of "fucking" proper per WP:BLP,
5. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive829#Disruptive_editing_in_Michael_Grimm_.28politician ,
6. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive244#User:Collect_reported_by_User:Anarchangel_.28Result:_ ,
7. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#silly_season_in_full_force_and_vigour_at_Michael_Grimm_.28politician.29,

which as a group rather suggest, in my opinion, that this has been discussed and discussed and discussed - each time with the same result -- we do not need "fucking" as part of a quote in a BLP. Collect (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michael Grimm (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110920091508/http://brooklyneagle.com/categories/category.php?category_id=31 to http://www.brooklyneagle.com/categories/category.php?category_id=31&id=40866

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)