Talk:2021 New York City Comptroller election

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

Endorsements[edit]

I think endorsements by non-notable (no wp article) endorsers should be deleted. --2603:7000:2143:8500:9908:4467:7D2D:5F71 (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly - to remain, all other endorsements, of notable endorsers, should have RS refs. --2603:7000:2143:8500:9908:4467:7D2D:5F71 (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of this consistent with 2021 New York City mayoral election --2603:7000:2143:8500:9908:4467:7D2D:5F71 (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. As stated, this was the "quick and dirty" because the section was entirely lacking. Individual sources can be found, but the Lander and Benjamin endorsements are covered by the ref on their names in the top line of their own box. At the time, the various democratic clubs were on the Mayor article. I don't add those and agree they should be notable orgs (or local chapters of notable orgs that aren't notable themselves). The line-by-line refs can be filled in later, whenever anyone with the gumption and time feels like doing so. JesseRafe (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. But we can't use Brad Lander's - for example - say so as to who endorsed him. First, he is not a good source for that. And second, he may be relying on tweets and the like that wp does not consider proper sources for that. Those need proper refs. 2603:7000:2143:8500:9908:4467:7D2D:5F71 (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it! JesseRafe (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good delegator! haha. Or, in the absence of proper refs, they should be deleted. But I will hold off on that for the moment, as maybe someone with interest in adding them will supply the refs, so I want to give them the chance. But for now, they don't have proper rs ref support. And my guess is some will fall into the sort of twitter support anyway that we don't allow to suffice.2603:7000:2143:8500:DDB2:A4E1:CCC1:91F3 (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's been nearly a week. I'm just about ready to delete those that do not have RS refs. They can always be added later if someone adds RS refs. 2603:7000:2143:8500:F57D:E78E:CA0F:BB07 (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. So I waited a week. Cleaned up some refs. But deleted those entries lacking rs refs. But in case anyone wants to see what we had, it is here, and if rs refs are added, pls feel free to restore.[1] Stay safe. 2603:7000:2143:8500:ECBF:450:3FA8:F22D (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fallacious argument to not tag where you seek the refs and then say no refs were provided. JesseRafe (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jesse. I left word on the talk page. A week ago. And a tag is not required before deleting text that lacks an RS ref. Especially when it involves people who are living. 2603:7000:2143:8500:8D74:1459:FD22:17AF (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The percentage of people who view this talk page is beyond miniscule. Where did I say anything was required? Don't put words in my mouth, I said it was a fallacious argument, which you seem to be adept at. If no one knows that you are seeking the cites, they're less likely to come across the need to provide them. Tagging was literally created to address this exact concern of yours, which you were ignoring as the most obvious solution to the problem. Also, they were sourced, but YOU chose to delete those starter-sources and leave nothing in its place, and then claim unsourced and then complain no one was sourcing when you coudld've just left the tags when you deleted the sources! JesseRafe (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought my fallacious you meant based on a mistaken belief. I thought the talk page was one appropriate place to leave word. Another as you say would have been the article. But I thought it would be less harmful to the article to not put a tag on it - those are too often used by people to mar an article, rather than to help it, I think. You didn't say it was required, but you seemed to be upset by it. But I said that it is not required, before deleting the text that lacks an RS ref. When they are sourced to a non-RS, they are for our purposes not sourced properly. I guess I could have written not sourced properly, or not sourced to an RS. But you seem to be fighting with me about something we both agree on at the bottom line. I'm trying to leave time for improvements, but not mar the article unnecessarily. That's why I for example also left a link above to the proposed endorsements. But in truth, especially where there are people involved, I don't think we have to wait to delete, I'm just trying to get this article to the best place, without needless ugly cite needed tags. Stay safe. 2603:7000:2143:8500:8D74:1459:FD22:17AF (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, maybe I meant "specious", but I meant an authentic conclusion based on a faulty premise, e.g. the places the tags were sought were not identified. Yes, there is a "better source needed" tag as well. And, there is a BLP prerogative to only have sourced items up -- when they are contentious. These, I posit, are not. Moreover, they were sourced. You decided it wasn't a good enough source, and removed it, but that does not mean they were not sourced at all. Leaving tags, for non-contentious items, gives passers-by an opportunity to cite them. Having esoteric conversations on a subpage isn't a substitute for that. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a different view, but I've done as you asked. BTW - I just saw User:Devonian Wombat deleting endorsements without sources on a separate nyc race page. Are we all using different criteria on when endorsements of living people can remain in an article, when they do not have RS sources? I think it would make sense for us all to have one standard. And when someone contends that an unsourced endorsement should be removed, doesn't that make it contentious? And when the non-rs sources are removed, and there is no source after an endorsement - isn't that clearly "unsourced"? And I think the "not sourced" statement in a tag or talk page would mean "not properly sourced." My thinking. 2603:7000:2143:8500:C575:4149:C023:3136 (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm having trouble finding some direct third party sources for some of these so-tagged, though did grab quite a few since, and if they were to be removed now, after a period of time of earnestly seeking them, I'd see it. Again, having the campaign self-source is, if not an RS, different than unsourced. And it's not considered contentious, as I understand it, if contested by editors. Contentious would be "XYZ supports impeaching Governor Cuomo" without a source - a contentious topic. Not something publicly identified elsewhere or on personal social media, just not findable in March 2021 when in October 2020 they public endorsed XYZ at a campaign rally or press release. Also, I saw that you (?) removed another source identifying it as facebook, presumably that being the rationale for removal? There is no such rule. Social media accounts of organizations are ipso facto includable as standalone sources on the same tier as the organizations' own websites. JesseRafe (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's the basis of your view that a statement in text that lacks an RS source is not in contention, when an editor contends that it should be removed? As to FB, yes, I would agree if it is a verified FB account, speaking about the organization itself and used as support for that, and apologize if I removed one that fits that criteria. But I checked, and I did in fact remove as I mentioned in the edit summary a FB ref. But it was not a FB ref to verified source - unlike the FB ref that we now have in the article (which is verified). Also, you can't be too testy about that, can you, since the text remained, sourced to an RS source? Or maybe you are not testy, but being collegial and trying to help me out, for the future. In which case I thank you. 2603:7000:2143:8500:C15F:EC15:6EAC:714D (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

/* Major declared candidates[edit]

I see that an editor has moved Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, who was not till now in that section, into the section of Major Declared Candidates. I didn't put her in either section, and don't have a firm view at this point, but just thought I would check the temperature of others here, as it was a sudden move, without discussion, or even an edit summary. Any thoughts? --2603:7000:2143:8500:C15F:EC15:6EAC:714D (talk) 08:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved her back out, don't see how she's a viable *major* candidate given the explicit criteria in the article. Ditto for Iscol. JesseRafe (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As she's now received sufficient GNG media coverage (and Iscol has as well), I am now - though I wasn't earlier, fine with her in that category. And Iscol is clearly a major candidate, with substantial media coverage (and not that we measure it this way, but some of that coverage notes that he is a major candidate, and that he is ahead of most of the other candidates in fund raising). So I'll support her move now, and Iscol's remaining there - there was no straight-faced issue with him, I think btw he is # 2 in fundraising. Oh - and they also meet the "have been included in polls" criterion .. though my first comment above was before any polls had been taken.--2603:7000:2143:8500:3127:A7C0:7F79:26F7 (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Owles club[edit]

It doesn't have a wp article, so shouldn't we delete it - as not significant enough? --2603:7000:2143:8500:3048:E4EF:82C2:5FAB (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help?[edit]

Some new single purpose editor keeps on improperly adding Patel (no wp article, etc) to the notable candidates sections of this article. And claiming she has matching funds. The truth is otherwise. As reported in the press on May 25: "Patel has raised about $227,000 and has spent nearly all of it. She has about $5,600 in cash on hand as of the filing."[2]

Can someone help? I don't want to get into a lone edit war with this single purpose editor seeking to spread untruths on wikipedia. --2603:7000:2143:8500:4517:BD3F:A123:9652 (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh1971 (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC) That "single purpose editor" would be me. Mukesh Prasad MD. You seem to be looking me up--here is the easiest link to who I am (https://weillcornell.org/prasadm). nothing to hide here. I am happy to speak with you if you like, but she has raised enough for matching funds and made the appropriate filings.[reply]

I am not looking up your real world identity.
As I wrote above, "Patel has raised about $227,000 and has spent nearly all of it. She has about $5,600 in cash on hand as of the filing." That is very far from meeting your assertion that she has raised enough for matching funds. You have not provided any RS evidence supporting your assertion. And the evidence shows just the opposite. And she has no WP article. She is non-notable by wp standards. 2603:7000:2143:8500:4517:BD3F:A123:9652 (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh1971 (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC) News is not yet updated as of the last filing. Didn't realize creating a Wikipedia page was Wikipedia's criteria for being a "major candidate" by your standards. Can remedy this easily. Will tell her team to create one. Quit policing democracy.[reply]

This user has been final warned on their talk page for deliberate false info. Nobody was doxxing you, but your comments show a clear conflict of interest with this candidate and a lack of care about Wikipedia policies. You are skirting with a block if you further demonstrate that you are here to promote an individual, not build an encyclopedia. JesseRafe (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jesse. Agree. 2603:7000:2143:8500:4517:BD3F:A123:9652 (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete[edit]

I suggest we delete the parentheticals w/year ranges someone has added to a minority of endorsers re the years they have held public office. It is needless clutter, and used in a few but far from all cases. --2603:7000:2143:8500:5146:8732:655B:4E69 (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed endorsements section[edit]

I do not believe that the endorsements section as was portrayed reflects how an encyclopaedic article will be developed. This is not a campaign site. Please read WP:Encyclopaedia and WP:Elections and referendums for further detail. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Results[edit]

Isn't it too early to add results, as an editor did? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_New_York_City_Comptroller_election&diff=1029981600&oldid=1029979823

With the reference saying that only 82% have reported? --2603:7000:2143:8500:98A6:314:E179:7800 (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_New_York_City_Comptroller_election&oldid=1212502285"