Talk:Carl Paladino

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

Nydied[edit]

SPA Nydied (talk · contribs) has been adding highly contentious information without including verifiable references from reliable sources, and without discussing on its user talk page.   — Jeff G.  ツ 01:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also [1] from User:Everard Proudfoot who may be the same person from the content of his posts on my UT page. Collect (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing someone of having two accounts when they clearly don't is of course a violation of the no personal attack rules.

But rather than make collect cry I'm going to ask if this a reliable source?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/15/tea-party-primary-candidates-gop

--Nydied (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that one looks much more reliable than the CBS one.   — Jeff G.  ツ 02:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. But I can't post much there without getting banned.

So do you want to do the honnor collect turned down? --Nydied (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian is problematic with unsigned "background" articles on political figures - they were the ones who published accusations that Prescott Bush was a Nazi sympathizer. The NYT article is far superior unless you really want to push the "animal sex" thing. Collect (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently more than 3 thousand articles on wikipedia that cite the Guardian so using it as a source is normal and denying it as a source is not.

However I suspect there may be better sources of information about Paladino's interest in animal sex available tomorrow so I'll bring them to your attention then.

--Nydied (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, because I disagree with Collect, I must, of course, be a sockpuppet? And I really don't understand how CBS News is not a reliable source. Note that I have not participated in any edit war on the article, I have solely asked Collect why they're removing clearly reliable sources. And no, Nydied, I do not think anybody who disagrees with you is being paid by a politician. Unlike some people, I believe in assuming good faith. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I did not remove any reasonably worded edit concerning the emails. I did revert one which stressed "sex with a horse" as being contentious per se, and not aimed at presenting a fully NPOV exposition with proper weight in a BLP. I was, however, concerned that you seemed to appear on my talk page arguing for Nydied's edits, rather than simply affirming your own, which I did not remove (I think I replaced some words with "improper" as being a fair term for the forwarded emails - which I trust you concur with). Is this now clear? Collect (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the removed paragraph to its mostly original form. I'm not sure that we need to get into the full details of what exactly was in the e-mails, only why they were considered controversial; i.e. mentioning that there was racism and pornography in the e-mails is OK, saying one had sex with a horse, one had the Obama inauguration rehearsal, etc. is too much detail. (P.S. the horse one... sounded more like a "caption this picture" dirty joke to me than any twisted bestiality fetish. But that's just me.) J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Improper" is sufficient - readers can follow the ref link. Also fixed the bit about NY examining the contracts, and Paterson announcing they would be honored (following wording in cite). Hope that ends all this. Collect (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Someone had simply erased the whole thing altogether, which is why I made the edit that I did. Also, the editing of the contract section is fine.J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The aim is to follow WP:BLP and WP:NPOV - which is all that one can ask for <g>. Collect (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tag[edit]

I would say the article is adequately sourced. Could the "needs citations" tag be removed? Saebvn (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail controversy[edit]

I've removed some statements that were added which characterized the legal status of the e-mails attributed to Paladino. Those statements were improper synthesis and original research, both prohibited on Wikipedia.

I also flagged the source that is used for the purported contents of the emails. The source is a website that appears to have a strongly partisan bent and does not appear to have significant editorial oversight. Furthermore, the article doesn't clearly state the provenance of the emails it attributes to Paladino. I have no problem with including nature of the e-mails if that information is available from a reliable source, but I question whether or not this source qualifies. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source in question is the organization that broke the story regarding the emails, and is the original source. The subject also admitted to the allegations. The political leanings of the organization and its editorial oversight policy, whatever they may be, are therefore irrelevant. Joey.J (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source is part of the story - it would be odd for us to be ostrichs on this - if the source has been known to make false accusations etc. that is par and parcel of the whole picture. Hence, relevant. Collect (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:QS says the editorial oversight and political bias of the source are still relevant. Do you have a source that clearly confirms that Paladino has admitted each and every word of that particular source are true? If not, it's still questionable. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daughter[edit]

[2] appears to state that someone took photos of the daughter - "Caputo said Paladino's anger with the paper exploded last Friday night when he got a call that a photographer, videographer and reporter from the Post were on the lawn of his daughter's house." and "Paladino on Sunday got a call from back home, saying that the same New York Post team was back at his daughter's house taking "close-range" photographs." The precise denial from the NYPost editor says "In addition, 'Mr. Paladino should not be surprised by the media’s interest in his families, as he has invited public scrutiny of his personal life by running for governor and speaking openly about his mistress and love child.“" and "Paladino spokesman Michael Caputo’s claim about our photographer is untrue." There was no denial that a photographer working for the NY Post exists, and that photographs were taken, only that Caputo was wrong. We are hitting WP:UNDUE if we extend this section at all. Collect (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Christopher Sadowski asserts that he is a "contract photographer" for the NYPost. [3]. Collect (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph[edit]

What's the source of the photograph in the right sidebar? The skintone looks photoshopped and zombie-like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.138 (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, all images I've seen of Paladino have that same skin tone. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the image was released by the Paladino campaign to Wikipedia themselves, so it's an officially approved image. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incident with New York Post columnist Fred Dicker[edit]

If I recall correctly he made a threat "take you out". This is the basis for the 'controversy' and the rest of the incident is simply he said / she said sourced from biased media.Woods01 (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tax breaks?[edit]

Why is there nothing in there on the tax breaks he specifically lobbied for, I thought they were in previous versions of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.73.127 (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paladino's Oct 10 speech on gays[edit]

Paladino's Oct 10 speech on gays has generated international news coverage and and extraordinary amount of discussion on the internet. Various attempts to cite this coverage has been effectively blanked by other editors. I will temporarily leave it blanked -- as it now is. However, the mere fact that it is "Contensious content" (sic), according to one of the editors who blanked it, does not mean that it should not be included on the page. I will replace it on the page unless a legitimate reason is given as to why it should not be included. 128.125.59.112 (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please be aware there is no deadline and your desired addition has been reverted by more than one user. Please present your desired addition and the citations supporting it for discussion here on the talkpage, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS - just because it is in the current 24 hour news cycle doesnt mean that it warrants extensive paragraphs of coverage or even mention at all. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My proposed edit is as follows: Controversial speech regarding gay people

On October 10, 2010, Paladino made a speech to a Jewish congregation in New York where he said that homosexuality was not "an equally valid and successful option."[1]

A video of the speech was available on youtube.com and various news sites such as CNN.com.[2] In the video Paladino said: "We must stop pandering to the pornographers and the perverts who seek to target our children and destroy their lives. I didn’t march in the gay parade this year — the gay pride parade this year. My opponent did, and that’s not the example we should be showing our children….and don’t misquote me as wanting to hurt homosexual people in any way. That would be a dastardly lie…I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t."[3]

His comments sparked significant controversy and charges of hypocrisy because, in 2009, Paladino had forwarded to associates various explicit photographs and videos via E-mail, including a video of a woman engaged in sex with a horse. (See E-mail controversy, below). [4]"

Note that is version is *significantly* different than the first version which was blanked. It has cites for the allegation of hypocrisy, and it has a shorter and more readable title. I certainly realize that wikipedia is not a news site. However, this is an extremely significant turning point in Paladino's campaign, and has generated more media coverage of his campaign than any other speech, statement, or action made by Paladino thus far.

128.125.59.112 (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to add this in its own section? with the header

Controversial speech regarding gay people[edit]

Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this bit is undue .. His comments sparked significant controversy and charges of hypocrisy because, in 2009, Paladino had forwarded to associates various explicit photographs and videos via E-mail, including a video of a woman engaged in sex with a horse. (See E-mail controversy, below). [4 .. also if it was not undue it would need attributing, the horse sex is not actualy mentioned in the citation eitherm the citation is also a bit attacking, we are a neutral reporter not a activist site. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The youtube link is not official and a likely copyright violation. Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The youtube link would be well protected by fair use. I am an attorney. Also, what does "official" mean? Are you suggesting that the youtube video is doctored? In anycase, the other link is to CNN's video site, and shows essentially identical content shot with a different camera. 128.125.59.112 (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ELNEVER no, we do not ever link to illegally hosted copyright materials. Active Banana (bananaphone 22:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems reasonable to me to leave out that last sentence then until or unless additional discussion of it continues. 128.125.59.112 (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely recommend putting the proposed section in the article and leaving out that last sentence. Paladino's remarks on Homosexuality represent a large component of the publicity and controversy surrounding him, and as a New Yorker I was very surprised to find that the issue - which received several headlines in the New York Times as it unfolded - is not even mentioned in this article. It is certainly incomplete without it. That said, it is unfair that no mention is made of Paladino's later apology (in which he said that he “should have chosen better words”), even if he continues to stand by the contents of his remarks. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/nyregion/13paladino.html?scp=1&sq=paladino&st=cse Fixx42 (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Perhaps we can add something, a bit trimmed... Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 comments about homosexuality[edit]

On October 10, 2010, Paladino made a speech to a Jewish congregation in New York where he said that homosexuality was not "an equally valid and successful option."[5]. A video of the speech was available on various news sites such as CNN.com.[6]

References

  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/nyregion/11paladino.html?ref=nyregion
  2. ^ http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/11/paladino-homosexuality-is-not-valid-or-successful-option/?iref=allsearch
  3. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKL9TRaePww
  4. ^ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20019197-503544.html
  5. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/nyregion/11paladino.html?ref=nyregion
  6. ^ http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/11/paladino-homosexuality-is-not-valid-or-successful-option/?iref=allsearch

Removed comments which are not in the source[edit]

I was about to remove: "and the site that initially broke the story has been accused in the past of forging e-mails pertaining to another scandal.[1]"

Here is the source, an editorial in a small paper:

Big catfight in Buffalo last week between amateur bloggers Alan Bedenko of Buffalo Pundit and Glenn Gramigna of New WNY Politics, precipitated by the self-important Bedenko's decision to publish what he even said was a series of fraudulent e-mails purporting to have been sent between some top aides to Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown last summer.
Clearly, the e-mails were meant to slander and defame the people at Buffalo City Hall. Why Bedenko, who is an attorney in real life, chose to publish them is anyone's guess.
Enter Gramigna, who openly speculated that -- since Bedenko was the only one to publish the lurid e-mails -- perhaps Bedenko in fact had been their author. Actually, the theory makes a lot of sense. The e-mails were shopped to various news outlets last summer, and my impression was that they were created in response to the publication by the Niagara Falls Reporter of another series of e-mails between the married state Rep. Sam Hoyt and a young and comely Albany intern he was carrying on with.

Adamtheclown (talk) 03:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hudson, Mike (2009-02-24). Big catfight in Buffalo last week. Niagara Falls Reporter. Retrieved 2010-04-17.

early life[edit]

If his parents were immigrants, he's a first-generation American, right? Not second? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.37.75 (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unnecessary disinction anyway. removed. Active Banana (bananaphone 18:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! First-generation refers to the immigrants. Those born in the country are second-generation. Cospelero (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Finding the consensus[edit]

After seeing this change, I came here to look for the part where there's a consensus to remove any mention of Paladino's statements about homosexuality, but I could not find it. What am I missing? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I noted was the gratuitous insertion of details about emails per [4]. The homosexuality discussions are on the talk page as well. Collect (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see the discussion, but I do not see any consensus to remove. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to discuss how we describe the emails he forwarded. So far, two versions have been suggested:

improper and offensive
racially insensitive and and sexually explicit

According to Off2riorob, the first is more neutral. However, I would say that it seems whitewashed, in that it does not specifically say what makes these emails improper and offensive. There are many ways that an email message could qualify as both, while being racially insensitive and sexually explicit is very specific. The more specific we are here, the less we are engaging in original research by substituting our own characterizations for the literal facts. In other words, we might find sexually explicit email messages to be offensive, or we might not, but it's undeniable that these messages were sexually explicit regardless of whether they were offensive. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


"Improper and offensive" is sufficient. Read Jimbo's talk page for extensive discussion regarding BLPs. The problem has not been with "whitewashing" as the references are surely there, but with "dirtwashing" which occurs every political silly season. Heck, someone even suggested I supported bestiality on my user talk page - to show you how far off base some editors can run. BLPs specifically are to be written "conservatively" per WP:BLP and that is what we ought to do. Collect (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that "improper and offensive" is sufficient. I think saying "racially offensive and sexually explicit" is specific without being gratuitous. However, I also think the emails have been given far too much weight in the article, as has the NY Post interview. At most, these incidents, including the gay remarks possibly, should be in one section. Perhaps something title Campaign controversies or the like. Giving them their own sections makes this read like an article in a tabloid, and I think that is a bigger violation of BLP. When writing a biography, we should be aiming for writing about the totality of someone's life. When it comes down to it, is the NY Post really that significant an event that it warrants its own section? AniMate 22:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How would you suggest fixing it? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Put everything into a single section and reduce each item down to two or three sentences max. AniMate 22:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't oppose this in principle, I'm concerned that, in practice, we might not be able to give each topic a balanced hearing in that space. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I saw your changes and have to agree that they're an improvement. Thank you for making the effort. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source cited (The Financial Times) says "racist" and not "racially insensitive". By inserting the latter term we are at risk of bias. Not for us to make a judgement on what sounds "best" - let's stick to the sources straight and simple. Otherwise I will add a line to the effect that "The Financial Times described the emails as racist". Contaldo80 (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has removed the Financial Times source but the New York Observer still states the emails were "racist". Why are we continuing to use racally insensitive as a term instead. There is a neutrality issue here. Why state that the website that first broke the story was "progressive" - is this an attempt to smear the source as biased. Contaldo80 (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


[5] inter alia are sufficient to use the extremely mild adjective "progressive" (indeed, it is preferred to "liberal" by many). [6] A fun video we did to help local progressive organizations fight the rhetoric Listed as a "progressive" news organization at [7], [8] from WNY Media Independent online network of progressive local media websites that involve a combination of community participation, activism and journalism for the betterment of the Western New York Region and has already had an impact on our community.. WNY Media Network has grown to average 250,00 page views a day. As for "racist" - there was extensive discussion thereon, and you are fully welcome to seek a new and different consensus on this talk page, per WP practice. Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you highlight the discussion please? I have looked at the debate and there is very little. Certainly no arguments to jusify why we are not using the wording taken direct from the sources. My concerns about bias and NPOV issues remain. It is not necessary to seek a consensus if there are sufficient grounds to believe that NPOV requirements are being violated. If you think there is a case for "racially insensitive" then please make it - otherwise I think we have a case of weasel words. Incidentally the inclusion of the word "progressive" seems designed in my mind to suggest that someone was deliberately out to get Paladino, thus attempting to weaken the charges against him.Contaldo80 (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The word "progressive" is repeatedly used as a self-descriptive adjective by the source, so that bit is a non-started. As for "racist" the implication is thus that Mr. Paladino is, himself, a "racist" whilst "racially insensitive" is clearly a better adjective for the objectionable forwarded emails. [9] is indicative of the methods used by those who favoured linking Paladino to bestiality etc. Need more such civil links by those you agree with? :) Collect (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I`m afraid we´re still not there on this. I don´t know whether Paladino himself is racist or not, but the sources we are using say that he forwarded on "racist" emails and not "racially insensitive" emails. To use the latter rather than the former in the article without strong justification raises NPOV issues. Unless someone can come up with a strong reliable source that calls the emails racially insensitive then we must go with the sources that we have. On the issue of "progressive", I´m sure the website says all sorts of things about itself - much of which we have chosen not to list in the article. The inclusion of "progressive" can only be there to suggest bias. Otherwise what justification have you for its inclusion? Please clarify. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:AGF "Progressive" does not suggest "bias" and thus can not be there to suggest bias. May we get this one settled for once and for all? If you disagree with prior consensus see WP:RFC and follow the procedures there. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Is there a better picture of this guy? He looks like he's got serious organ failure. In fact he looks like an extra in a zombie flick, you know the kind just before they "turn"! It takes a double take to look a the picture. Incredibly if this the only image released by his campaign team, how many others did they reject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.75.85 (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it looks like he has a black eye, no? A fight with the reporters? ;) Strausszek (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive[edit]

[10] WNY Media Network - Buffalo's Progressive Home on the Web. Buffalo's progressive news radio station for Buffalo, Erie County, New York State and the World... appears reasonably clear. [11] etc. Self-description seems clear. Collect (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Jackieob68, 17 June 2011[edit]

Military Experience: Paladino was commissioned from ROTC as a Reserve Officer in the U.S. Army on June 1, 1968 as a Second Lieutenant. He received a deferment for law school and entered active duty on August 5, 1971 with a 2-year active duty obligation, at Fort Bliss, Texas for three months and then Fort Lewis, Washington (Vietnam).

He was ranked 1st Lietenant in his class of about 100 regular and reserve officers in advanced training for air defense artillery and was appointed Commander of his class. Paladino's son was born at Fort Bliss Major Beaumond Hospital on September 23, 1971. Two days later, Paladino read the morning report to his class which included a DOD letter stating that the Army was "riffing" officers because the war in Vietnam was winding down and that all Reserve Officers would receive new orders calling for 3 months of active duty for advanced training and 6 years in the Reserves.

Paladino joined the Army 98th Reserve Division and was based in Amherst, New York; he served for approximately 10 years and retired honorably as Captain.


Jackieob68 (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Avicennasis @ 17:19, 16 Sivan 5771 / 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I submit the above military background for Carl Paladino. I work for Carl and have submitted the inforamtion upon his request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackieob68 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, you don't have any reliable sources? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Caputo[edit]

This man was Paladino's campaign manager. Someone has created an article that is recently nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Caputo. Any informed input is appreciated. Thanks. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from , 12 October 2011[edit]

Please add this to Carl Paladino's CONTROVERSIES third paragraph. I think it is important to note Paladino's reference to his gay nephew. In his own defense, Paladino told reporters that he is not homophobic and that he employs gay people, including his nephew Jeffrey Hannon. Hannon later disparaged his uncle's remarks.[1]

RealAugustWest (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Nope. Positions about homosexuality are already properly in article, and this taboid article does not improve the BLP. Collect (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing edit request, please establish consensus on this talk page for the change. Monty845 15:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Fermino, Jennifer (2010-10-13). "Uncle slam! Gay nephew blasts Carl". New York Post.

Unexplained link[edit]

Hello, I am not sure if I am contacting the correct department so I apologize in advance (This is my first time contacting Wikipedia, and the Help sections were a bit confusing.) The Carl Paladino page has a link towards the end under the "See Also" section which brings up a list of the richest American politicians, but I do not find Paladino's name listed there. Can you please tell who to contact for more information about this?

Thank you,

Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.153.70.100 (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Carl Paladino. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 20:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 29 external links on Carl Paladino. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request page lock[edit]

So, given the recent controversy, can we get a temp page lock here/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.244.165 (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the racist comment not mentioned in the lede?[edit]

The racist comment about President and Mrs. Obama is buried at the end of the article. The comments, which he has confirmed, are the worst demonstration of racism by anybody who could possibly be called a mainstream politician that I can remember since the 1970s (correct me if I'm wrong). It goes much beyond what Earl Butz said in 1976 that got him fired from the cabinet. And Butz's article mentions his comment in the 2nd sentence. In the body it does not shilly-shally about calling it racist. We should include a short sentence in the lede and clearly describe the comments as racist. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Paladino is best known for his racist attacks. WP:BLP is an important policy, of course, but we do not breach any BLP regulations by mentioning Paladino's controversies in the lead. We do breach WP:NPOV by keeping them out of the lead, as they have made the news around the world like no other previous action or comment by Paladino and clearly belong in the lead, which should summarize the most notable aspects of the subject. Jeppiz (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Incumebency[edit]

Although the Buffalo School Board voted 6-2 for Paladino to resign, they do not have the power to remove him from office or "expel" him as the article suggests. Unless Paladino resigns himself, he remains an incumbent member of the board, and no successor is TBD. The only person with the power to remove him is the state head of education, and that would be pending an investigation.

I would edit the article myself, but it is semi-protected. I suggest that it is reverted to Paladino remaining an incumbent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasekfan39 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected that and included the board's statement in the lede that his comments were “unambiguously racist, morally repugnant, flagrantly disrespectful, inflammatory and inexcusable.” Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Carl Paladino. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Carl Paladino" pornographic|racist[edit]

  • Olbermann "Carl Paladino" pornographic|racist site:www.nbcnews.com/id/
  • "Carl Paladino" pornographic|racist site:www.countdownlibrary.com
  • sep|september|october|oct 2010 "Carl Paladino" pornographic|racist site:www.nbcnews.com/id/

It's almost possible he's best known for[edit]

sending packages to potential voters that either contained, or smelled as though they contained, rotting vegetables, during the 2010 campaign for governor. ELSchissel (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carl_Paladino&oldid=1207498276"