Talk:2017 New York City mayoral election

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

Question for administrator[edit]

I'd like to improve the quality of this page by suggesting a new article for the candidate Paul Massey. Can you help me create a page for "Paul Massey, businessman"? --Af398 (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you head over to Wikipedia:Articles for creation, they can assist you with that. However, if this person is only a candidate and has not held a significant office in the past, he may not meet the notability requirements for politicians, so your request may be rejected. See this notability guideline for details. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you guys include a picture of Bo Dietl? I think that would be fair

There have been more than two NYC mayoral candidate debates[edit]

There have been other mayoral debates, including the one given by the NYC Political Forum on Sept. 8th, 2017, for all declared candidates, regardless of party affiliation. The video recording of the debate is now available at The New York City Political Forum YouTube channel: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1CFFi0JrwY&t=963s> In it, candidates state that they have been in a number of other candidate debates (without Bill de Blasio). I noted this before, but the new section with my remarks seems to have disappeared. 98.14.15.215 (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For some apparent reason Dr. Robbie Gosine has been removed multiple times from the page. Dr. Gosine is a registered Independent candidate for public office. Continued removal based on him not being recognized is baseless; he has more recognition than other persons listed, such as the folks under the withdrew heading. His credentials are academic and professional and it is accepted the world over in his field to list credentials.

Gosine[edit]

Hi. I am Dr. Gosine, my info has been repeatedly removed. Now, If Wikipedia is in the habit of summarily removing factual information to cater to some whim, then this brings into question the entire validity of ALL information held on Wikipedia. This has serious ramification to ALL research that remotely references ANY Wikipedia data. I understand that Wikipedia collective adjudicates information, however based on the ridiculous reference pints of media coverage as a means of establishing validity of a candidate, I can only assume that no one here has an actual background in research and the slightest concept on setting up accurate reference to establish identity and validity. Suffice to say, I have put back my information and yes, these are my credentials - Dr. Robbie Gosine BSEE, MSEE/Bio.E, Ph.D, PE. SMIEE[88], Engineer[89], Naval Officer, Research Scientist[90], Inventor[91],Educator[92](Write in Candidate)[93][94][95][96]. And they are real earned credentials. I earned them and they are fact. And they fall in line with the requirements of Wikipedia. What is more disturbing is that after repeated removals last year, the moment my information goes back up it is removed - this shows that my information is targeted. Considering that this can be done, this indicates that Wikipedia has no functioning mechanism to prevent vandalism, manage fact and ensure adherence to any form of scholarly work. I sincerely hope that this is not politically motivated and/or an attempt to re-write history as it suits Wikipedia.

I changed the obnoxiously over-long, over-detailed (yet somehow still vague... Educator?) and over-cited: 

Dr. Robbie Gosine BSEE, MSEE/Bio.E, Ph.D, EI. SMIEE[88], Engineer[89], Naval Officer, Research Scientist[90], Inventor[91],Educator[92](Write in Candidate)[93][94][95][96]

to a simple: 

Robbie Gosine, Ph.D, Engineer

with one ref (to his campaign site) with the very explicit edit summary, "overly fawning list of credentials for non-notable write-in candidate, WP is not a repository for external links disguised as refs to serve as a vanity CV".

This was apparently not good enough for the IP user, who added it back whole hog. As this individual is entirely non-notable, has no media coverage on his campaign, and wasn't even listed on the ballot, I think we can remove him completely as the IP won't even concede a very fairly truncated and neutral list of his accomplishments and credentials appear on this page. Also, IP almost certainly must have a COI with the "candidate". JesseRafe (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After you truncated the credentials, the candidate was summarily removed by another user.
I can agree on your truncated version, however others have consistently removed the candidate. I have no conflict of interest with this matter. Im an editor just like yourself. I noticed undue editing and acted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.144.88 (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
JesseRafe i find it difficult to comprehend how media coverage = notability. We do not develop Wikis based on media but fact. The media uses wiki as a reference, in effect, if we cite media as our batometer, we end up in a self referencing loop of garbage. To ascertain credentials, i searched the person on Google and verified each credential,
. It apoears that you have a vested interest in obliterating one person, while unknowns are still listed. We need to be fair. This is a shared IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.144.88 (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Notability, it is literally a foundational principle of Wikipedia, your facts are completely backwards as third-party coverage is essential for "notability". If we just used primary sources, everyone with a blog would be notable and this would be a white pages, not an encyclopedia. JesseRafe (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The individual in question is not a blogger but a research scientist, published author and recognized by the IEEE as a Senior Member. In fact, the member was an Independent candidate registered with the NYS Board of Elections and received votes. You are attempting to write history to conform with your perceptions and not historical fact. This leads me to believe that you have a political position on this matter and you are not unbiased. Repeatedly removing the candidate's name and then stating the reason is based on notoriety is not only obscene. Third party coverage is provided by the Gotham Gazette - http://www.gothamgazette.com/city/6676-candidates-for-2017-city-elections-mayor-city-council-comptroller Additional 3rd party information is shown on the NYS BOE and NYCCFB. You just do not want to list the person and this is unethical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.144.88 (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are several others who should be removed as not notable, too. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New York City mayoral election, 2017. 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) 12:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Level of Media Coverage for Included Candidates[edit]

Hi all,

I've been recently participating in an OTRS discussion with Dr Gosine (the subject of an earlier discussion) as to whether there was sufficient coverage to include in the list of candidates. I have raised the discussion topic at a few places to see some people's views. There did seem a reasonable consensus that one of two things should happen:

1) Gosine should be added (in some fashion) 2) Equivalent candidates should otherwise be withdrawn

There's plenty of sources that demonstrate Gosine's presence in the election, in terms of secondary sources these are usually just 1-line mentions, however. Gotham Gazette, Ref 2, Ref 3

I do believe that it's preferable to include more information than less, when given the choice, but I know this isn't a universal view.

I believe @JesseRafe:'s shortened version in the discussion above makes more sense than the original extended variant. Pinging the IP linked to individual @107.145.97.234:

Nosebagbear (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't want to re-litigate the whole thing, prior engagements with the above were exhausting. I'd move for #2 in the following manner: Libertarian candidate be moved from minor 3rd to the other major 3rds, that section be renamed "independent candidates" and it be pared down to just Dietl and Tolkin, who were very much active candidates. All the others be removed as on par with Gosine. Tolkin has fewer sources than the other "nobodies" which actually somewhat counter-intuitively makes sense as he was more seriously running and didn't have to have COIs/SPAs editing WP to clutch at straws to find sources, a self-funded technocrat if I recall who made a big issue about ballot and debate access for third party candidates, so definitely notable in the context of this election. The other dozen or so were only mentioned in perfunctory "these other people are also running" type blurbs. I follow NYC politics very closely, this is all just off of memory, could be wrong about a few things here, not looking anything up to back this up at the moment. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That all sounds reasonable - I'm happy to carry that out, though it'll be a couple of days to get round to it Nosebagbear (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_New_York_City_mayoral_election&oldid=1212655481"