Talk:2024 United States House of Representatives elections in New York

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Esposito NYP[edit]

I really think we can't claim as yet that Esposito is running on the basis of a single report in (a) a source found Generally Unreliable in an RFC that (b) was found specifically unreliable for politics (c) that isn't in any other source whatsoever (and no, unreliable source the Daily Kos reprinting unreliable source the NYP isn't a second source) and - the clincher for me - (d) doesn't even have a primary source I could find, such as Esposito saying so.

We have WP:BLP rules for a reason.

If Esposito announces tomorrow, we can certainly use that. Right now, we don't actually have an RS for this claim, and per guidelines and policy I suggest it shouldn't go in - David Gerard (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • David Gerard Not every person considering a political campaign makes a public tweet or something saying "I am considering a political campaign." The New York Post article is the primary source in this case, they are citing a conversation they had with her. By your logic, we can't list any potential candidates in any WP article unless they make a press release confirming they are considering a campaign. I agree that NYP should generally be avoided but this use seems fine, unless you have proof they lied about the conversation they had with Esposito. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the RFC, you'll note that the NYP fabricates quotes all the time. And there are still zero RSes to back the claim, not even a primary source.
There is no reason to believe any of this claim. You're violating WP:BLP at this point.
Other editors are reverting your other spurious claims on this article. Please stop until you can find actual solid RSes for your claims - David Gerard (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All incumbents (but one) are running[edit]

All of them have reelection websites (except Espailat, who doesn’t apparently need one) and all of them are requesting money, at least according to my SPAM filter. Please fix this. Xxxxx

1[1] 2[2] 4[3] 5[4] 6[5] 7[6] 8[7] 9[8] 10[9] 11[10] 13[11] 15[12] 16[13] 17[14] 18[15] 19[16] 20[17] 21[18] 22[19] 23[20] 24[21] 25[22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.18.11.67 (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having a campaign website (that was created before this year) or raising money doesn't automatically mean they're running for re-election.
    • Yeah, it does, especially if they’re doing so less than three months before petitioning starts and they’re sending out fundraising spam. The only incumbent to withdraw did so four months ago, leaving plenty of time for others to fundraise and organize. AS to having a website created before this year, fundraising is a full time thing. Even Espallat, who’s campaign consisted of a mailer and a couple of people handing out palm cards during early voting did it. Wowizowie57 (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fundraising doesn't mean you're running for re-election. Many incumbents send out fundraising emails and then later decide to retire. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Not this late in the season. In most states, including this one, fundraisers less than three months before the primary period begins, especially with headers like ‘“Longworthy for congress’ on them,means they’re running. Wowizowie57 (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nicklalota.com/
  2. ^ https://garbarinoforny.com/
  3. ^ https://despositoforcongress.com/in-the-news/
  4. ^ https://www.congressmangregorymeeks.com/
  5. ^ https://www.gracefornewyork.com/
  6. ^ https://www.reelectnydiavelazquez.com/
  7. ^ https://hakeemjeffries.com/
  8. ^ https://voteyvette.com/
  9. ^ https://www.dangoldmanforny.com/
  10. ^ https://nicolemalliotakis.com/
  11. ^ https://www.facebook.com/TWU4Espaillat
  12. ^ https://torres.nyc/
  13. ^ https://bowmanforcongress.com/
  14. ^ https://www.lawlerforcongress.com/
  15. ^ https://www.patryanforcongress.com/
  16. ^ https://www.marcforus.com/
  17. ^ https://paultonko.com/
  18. ^ https://eliseforcongress.com/
  19. ^ https://www.brandonforcongressny22.com/
  20. ^ https://nicklangworthy.com/
  21. ^ https://claudiaforcongress.com/
  22. ^ https://www.votemorelle.com/

Contributions and financing[edit]

I've marked the contributions tables for update since the data they show is more than four months old and has significantly changed. It is tempting to remove this information as it will never be up to date (until the end of the campaign, I guess, and even then ...) and is better left to the research sites that track such matters. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a weird reason to remove them. All information about an ongoing election (or really any ongoing event) will always be "a little" out of date. Should we also remove the endorsement boxes? After all, those might not reflect every new endorsement that's come out.BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all weird. Wikipedia is not intended to mirror other sources of information. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Petitioning has begun!!![edit]

Okay, ALL incumbents are running. Okay, there are two who aren’t but we known who for quite a while. The way it works is this: To get an endorsement from an officially recognized club (they do much of the work), a candidate has to ask and address a meeting. Any candidate with an endorsement IS running, no “potentials” anymore. A candidate has to get the required signatures by the first week of April. XXSXSX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.231.109 (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Getting an endorsement doesn't prove they're running. AIPAC endorsed multiple congressmembers last year who ended up announcing they wouldn't run this year. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you apparently didn’t read the initial post very well. Local Democratic clubs DO NOT endorse people who do not ASK them for one, especially if the petitioning to get on the ballot is going on, With only a month to get the requisite amount of signatures, a candidate is running. This is going to be a quiet year, in New York City, with very few candidates challenging incumbents, there’s almost no news. 12:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowizowie57 (talk • contribs)
"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources" (WP:RS) BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These ARE those things. Did you LOOK at those sources? When a group endorses a candidate, and the candidate accepts (if they didn’t, the endorsement wouldn’t have been published), then they’re running. If a candidate published a post on social media saying that they’re running, then that’s a reliable source. It’s simple really. Someone just put up a tweet from Yuh-Line Niou saying that she’s considering running against Goldman. Why is this considered legitimate when a tweet by Yvette Clark’s campaign manager asking people to sign up for campaign events not be? Wowizowie57 (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter is not a reliable source. I have removed that Yuh-Line Niou citation. A declaration of candidacy via Twitter would not be accepted as a source. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about Facebook or the Green Papers? Also, in New York, it’s the other way around. If an incumbent declares something, it’s that they’re NOT running. Wowizowie57 (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook is equally unreliable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not when it is posted by the campaigns it isn’t. Please stop forcing Wikipedia to lie! 74.64.231.109 (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Social media posts are not a WP:RS. You're the one who's lying. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
‘please show how these people aren’t actually running. Show how local political clubs are lying to their memberships about petitioning. I’d really like to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.231.109 (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite a reliable secondary source, per WP:RS. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it was done. Several times.64.18.11.70 (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A social media post is not a reliable secondary source, per WP:RS. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about newsletters from local political clubs? You rejected those, and they ARE. Or how about the Green papers? 74.64.231.109 (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A newsletter is not a secondary source. The Green Papers are not a reliable source. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green papers are “reliable” when it comes to everything else, such as disqualifying results from the Nevada presidential primary, why not this?
As to newsletters. The New York Times publishes articles based in direct experience by its reporters. How is that secondary? There is no real difference except for scale. 74.64.231.109 (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santos source[edit]

@BottleOfChocolateMilk I changed the source because Axios is a notable source per WP:RSP, and for a statement such as this I feel it would be better to use a source properly vetted by the community (and there are potential issues with Semafor's connection to China, but those aren't relevant to this article and would be better on a WP:RSN discussion). I recognize that on this article, Semafor is probably fine; although I do want to note that Axios says he has filed, whereas Semafor says he will tomorrow.

We could very well just put both sources, I wouldn't be opposed to that. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BottleOfChocolateMilk If you're gonna keep reverting my edits then respond to the talk page messages... and there's nothing wrong with having multiple sources for the same thing, btw. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

according to Wikipedia, these sources are fine. So why does one administrator refuse to use them?[edit]

Here we go again[edit]

OKAY, an administrator says that the official Republican Party website isn’t GOOD enough to be listed as a source. Why? You can say it’s partisan, and it is, but we aren’t talking about issues or Trump, we are talking about who are the presumptive nominees for office. These are not mere “endorsements,” although that should have been good enough, but a list of Nominees who actually got enough signatures to secure a ballot spot in the primary, and because they were unopposed had the primary cancelled and are now there by default. Yeah, the Republican Party in Manhattan is moribund, and the chances of any of these people will actually WIN is nil, doesn’t mean that they aren’t worthy of a mention. Pretending that the information cannot be trusted and removing it from Wikipedia is tantamount to lying. XXXXX

  • "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources" (WP:RS) BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • **Okay, how you define "reliable?" What I had was a link to the OFFICIAL New York County Republican Committee's website. not some blogger, not some social media post. But the OFFICIAL committee. their candidates for the Fall election.

How is it NOT reliable? You can say, "it says it's being updated for the 2024 election" right, but it has new candidates on the list. This IS the update, and the Republicans don't LIKE primaries for local offices. They don't have the resources for one in Manhattan. How is it NOT published? It's on an official website. In the 21st century, that IS published.

So one can say that this is the "reliable, published source" you require.

We can't use the NYC Board of Election candidates list (google it yourself) for these people because it only lists the candidates for the competitive primaries, and for Congress, there are only three. the 10th, the 14th, and the 16th.

(You can use it for Even Hutchison, however, as he's on the ballot in the 10th)

So with the information on all the petitions taken down (six hundred pages worth of PDF files). For example, Andrea Morse has received the endorsement by the Staten Island Democratic Committee, and the Board of Elections doesn't list any contested races for Staten Island AT ALL, therefore we must conclude that Ms. Morse is the presumptive nominee.

I know it's not the best, but this year's the least newsworthy election season in decades. The fact that all but three Congresspeople are running unopposed just isn't newsworthy. The People running against Goldman aren't notable (I've met them) and have almost no support. But this isn’t the place for analysis and gossip, it’s about whether or not an official announcement by a legitimate political party published on it’s website is “reliable” enough to use as a reference on Wikipedia. As I said before, it’s an official announcement by a legitimate political party and so it is. It’s not an endorsement by a national lobbying group, or a post on social media. It’s an official announcement. The fact that these guys are no hope-ers have nothing to do with it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_New_York&oldid=1222687845"