Talk:Sam Hoyt

Intern concerns

Is there a citation available for the assertion that Hoyt had affairs with interns? Mytildebang 22:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes there is, and for some reason the information -mind you, verifiable, correct, public information - keeps being removed from the article and such incorrect reversions need to stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WNYBuffalo (talk • contribs) 03:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe Mytildebang's concern was with the unsourced PDF - which seemed to be nothing more than a blog file. I've replaced it with a NYT reference, which should meet his verifiability concerns. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a long record of vandalism of this article, where people are repeatedly removing references to Hoyt's romantic tryst with his intern. If this continues, it needs to be brought up with an administrator, to have this article protected. WP:RFP is where to request protection, FYI. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of vandalism. People have been removing a poorly sourced claim in a BLP, entirely appropriate. The fact that the claim could be better sourced is somewhat irrelevant, it's not the job of other editors to find out if there are better sources for poorly sourced claims. No attempt was made by the (single) editor who continually added the poorly sourced claim to discuss the removal while as shown above, another editor did ask if there were better sources Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Could be - I'm just paranoid where anonymous edits are made. In any case, hopefully that's the end of that. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you, MollyFreed, keep removing acurate - verifiable - public, information? 10 June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by WNYBuffalo (talk • contribs) 03:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've provided the direct links from the New York State Assembly web-site on the action taken against Hoyt. I believe it's reasonable to conclude that the claim is well sourced based on the information from the Assembly web-site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Integre (talk • contribs) 19:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to all the above-identified editors who have commented on this issue, I have gone through and made several contributions, including verifiable references, and have done general editing, as well as adding relevant information. At the time that I came to this article, there was no source pointing to the New York Times, but only sources from Celeste Katz's pages in the New York Daily News. While the two that I included are reliable sources, she points to another within one of her articles that incorrectly states that Sam had an "affair," but she provides absolutely NO reliable or verifiable evidence or facts related to this. In that reference that is not included herein, a dead link to a Western New York political blog (WNYBuffalo, as also seen having made comments regarding unreliable and libelous information, above, on this talk page) is attached to it; and such information is contentious and libelous, and cannot be included anyway. God only knows how long a link that I corrected was attached to the unverifiable and libelous quote about Sam that someone previously included - looks to be about 8 years or so! There must be a better way that contentious and libelous material from unverifiable and unreliable sources can be removed more quickly so that it does not remain online for sooo long - incredible! So, what I did in regard to the section about the "inappropriate personal relationship" was to provide only the facts, and quote the actual, verifiable sources of the information about this issue. There is no mention of anything sexual or an affair having occurred, and therefore, all mention of these have been removed, and must remain out of the article about Sam because they are, in fact, contentious and libelous. Unless any other editor can provide facts about these issues from reliable sources, then they must remain excluded from this article. I understand that someone's feelings may've been hurt about this issue, and in no way am I attempting to minimize whatever it was that may or may not have occurred, however the information that was included pointed to no actual reference. There had been an reference attached to the libelous information that did not include any specific information that the Wiki editor had included in this article. That information, therefore, has been removed by me, and the reference attached to what it actually does cite. Thus, I have cleaned up this entire article, and also moved and changed the "Scandal" section to be toward the bottom rather than at the top where it was previously. Something of that nature that is libelous and unreliably-sourced has no business being in this article, no matter what may or may not have occurred. Daniellagreen (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like to propose adding either Level 1 or Level 2 protections or semi-protections to this page so that the libelous and contentious material does not continue to be re-added, for unregistered and/or new users to be unable to edit the page, and/or for confirmed users to potentially have changes to the article be first-reviewed so that false, harmful, and unsourced information is excluded from this article. Open for discussion. Daniellagreen (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC) To follow-up, I have officially requested Wiki administrative protections for this article. Daniellagreen (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

As of today, this article has successfully become more neutral, citing factual information and properly-sourced and reliable references, particularly in regard to the contentious material that had been included within it by some previous editors. Also as of today, this article has come to the attention of administrators for the request of protection in order to maintain it as neutral and exclusionary of harmful material. Be advised that I will also be observing the article. Anyone who continues to include libelous and falsely-sourced information regarding such libel will, again, be reported. Daniellagreen (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Located and included sourced information about the affair. Daniellagreen (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources and inline citations

There could definitely be an improvement of this article in terms of better inline citations and clarification of source material. In several instances, the information that includes inline citations cannot be found in the linked source material. Preferably, it should by edited by someone who is more familiar with the subject matter.206.47.106.181 (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi 206.47.106.181, Also in response to your comments, please see mine, above, in the "Intern concerns" section, dated December 14, 2013. I hope this helps. Daniellagreen (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like to propose adding either Level 1 or Level 2 protections or semi-protections to this page so that the libelous and contentious material does not continue to be re-added, for unregistered and/or new users to be unable to edit the page, and/or for confirmed users to potentially have changes to the article be first-reviewed so that false, harmful, and unsourced information is excluded from this article. Open for discussion. Daniellagreen (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC) To follow-up, I have officially requested Wiki administrative protections for this article. Daniellagreen (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

As of today, this article has successfully become more neutral, citing factual information and properly-sourced and reliable references, particularly in regard to the contentious material that had been included within it by some previous editors. Also as of today, this article has come to the attention of administrators for the request of protection in order to maintain it as neutral and exclusionary of harmful material. Be advised that I will also be observing the article. Anyone who continues to include libelous and falsely-sourced information regarding such libel will, again, be reported. Daniellagreen (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Article upgrade

This article has been upgraded from start class to C class; please feel free to add more references to build up the article. Daniellagreen (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Error in Reference #4

I've spent 10 minutes trying to locate what is wrong with reference #4. Another editor made an update to the page, but also made this error. If making edits, please go back and review your work so errors have not been made in the process. Thanks, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sam Hoyt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nyslocalgov.org/pdf/hoyt_bio.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101126211933/http://preservenys.org/downloads-ct/PR-valesky-hoyt-final.pdf to http://www.preservenys.org/downloads-ct/PR-valesky-hoyt-final.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131216002619/http://www.thecommunicator.org/121999/lawmakers.htm to http://www.thecommunicator.org/121999/lawmakers.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nyslocalgov.org/pdf/hoyt_bio.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)