Talk:Carl DeMaio/Archive 1

Untitled comment

This seems like a campaign ad, written by Carl DeMaio himself. It does not seem to have neutral perspective. Futurehouse (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Restroom controversy

DeMaio's restroom controversy (see, e.g., http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/politics/Carl-DeMaio-Allegations-Masturbation-Bathroom-City-Hall-Voice-of-OC-221379541.html) is appropriate for inclusion. The accusation was made by credible individuals (fellow city council members), was reported by numerous credible sources, and DeMaio himself thought the accusation important enough to take a polygraph test and make public comments. I see no basis for not including it. MelanieN's claim that the accusation was "poorly sourced" does not appear to be correct, as it was reported by many news agencies and based on public allegations made by multiple city council members. KFM2 (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

In agreement with KFM2. Well sourced and significant in the campaign. Its exclusion is blatantly POV/political. Tomtom284 (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see "Response to Allegations" section below. Consensus seems to be for exclusion.CFredkin (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Biased language, severe POV problem

Case in point: "Prior to winning his seat on the City Council, DeMaio was best known in San Diego as the City Hall watchdog. He helped uncover the city’s financial and ethical problems. After years of prodding city leaders to enact reforms, a frustrated DeMaio decided to run for City Council. DeMaio’s pledge to the voters was simple: "Clean Up City Hall". His platform included balancing the budget, reforming the pension system, fixing crumbling infrastructure, and restoring ethics and accountability to every level of city government. Refusing to shed his watchdog roots, DeMaio pledged "to continue to serve as the eyes and ears of the taxpayers on the City Council.""

Everything in bold is blatant POV. Bluerondo (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right, the article was completly non-neutral - because it was copied verbatim from his campaign website and/or city council website. I just did a complete rewrite, putting in neutral Reliable Sources and eliminating all the campaign-style stuff. --MelanieN (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I added the notability tag to the article. Unless someone can find reliable third party sources to support statements made on this page, we should begin to think about deletion.Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleting the entire page is a pretty extreme step to take for uncited information. Keep in mind, the information isn't false, it's just not cited. If you delete this page then you'd have to delete 9 out of 10 bio's on Wikipedia.

The guy's an elected city offical, currently not campaigning for anything. Plus give the public some credit. They know what they're getting when they look at wikipedia and see the information's not cited.

In the meantime, check out these articles from Union Tribune and CityBeat. I'm sure the info will be properly cited sooner rather than later.

The "Government Budget Geek"

Newcomer businessman wants a shot at fixing S.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDresident (talk • contribs) 00:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"Plus give the public some credit. They know what they're getting when they look at wikipedia and see the information's not cited."

No, that's not how Wikipedia works. Statements are supported, or they may be deleted. Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So many people use Wikipedia because of its credibility, so I agree with you completely. All the information on this site should be cited. Period. I just think it would be unfortunate to delete the entire page because of citation problems. Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.255.31 (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Dave Maass: I wrote the CityBeat story pointing out this Wikipedia conflict and so I feel I now have a conflict that prevents me from editing this page. I would like to point out a few recommended edits.

- "DeMaio has arguably been the leading voice for fiscal responsibility and reform on the City Council." This line should be deleted. Right now, the citation links to a 2004 story. DeMaio was elected in 2008, therefore the story cannot possibly support the statement.

- "The article also stated that the Wikipedia pages of councilmembers Tony Young, Todd Gloria, Sherri Lightner and Marti Emerald were all "tainted with editorial," although it did not indicate whether the pages had been self-created or edited." This is irrelevant and has been added for spin, not for the sake of a complete and accurate page.

- Also, in response to the user who stated that DeMaio is not running for anything; he recently took out paperwork to run for Mayor of San Diego.

- Finally, CityBeat thanked the diligent Wikipedia users working on DeMaio's page in this week's issue. http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-8686-on-loughner-and-jacobs.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by DAVE MAASS) 23:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dave's suggestions and have made the edits. I have also copyedited the article and cleaned up references. I removed "City Hall" from the Wikipedia controversy section -- this seems to prove Dave's point that the addition of other council members to the section is "spin."

I plan to continue to monitor this page and will fix or remove any attempts to spin the article. As it stands, this page is not unfavorable to DeMaio, and it doesn't need to be made more favorable. And just for general reference, in case anyone was wondering or thinking about it -- there is also a policy on editing Wikipedia using multiple accounts, registered or otherwise: "the use of multiple accounts to deceive other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards – sock puppetry – is forbidden." I will be on the lookout. Athene cunicularia (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's another recommended edit: - "In 2005, the New York Times dubbed him "San Diego's Taxpayer Watchdog." This is attributed to the New York Times, which did not award him any title of the kind, especially not one that should be capitalized. The actual line is "De Maio, the San Diego watchdog, is lobbying for a federal law that would impose Erisa-type rules on public plans," so the phrasing is also inaccurate. In fact, "San Diego's Taxpayer Watchdog" is the name DeMaio uses to describe himself on his campaign page http://www.votecarldemaio.com/. The use of the New York Times is meant only to justify that title. - Dave Maass —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.70.179.117 (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Leave it to a Citybeat reporter like Dave Maass to say he has a conflict of interest and then go ahead and give his recommendations for changes anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eno hth (talk • contribs) 07:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It is also quite disturbing that it seems that Athene cunicularia is obviously in correspondence with Dave Maass This is highly disturbing for the well being of Wikipedia that a Journeyman Editor and a member of the Guild of Copy Editors is discussing edits with a self professed biased reporter like Dave Maass Hopefully someone higher up will review this problem before Athene cunicularia deletes this remark. Eno hth (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Um...I said I had a conflict because it was my story cited and, unlike some users, I do not feel it is proper to edit Wikipedia entries that are in direct reference to one's work. If you read the guidelines, the discussion page is where people with these types of conflicts should suggest edits.

Further, I do not see what is so "disturbing" about contacting Wikipedia editors to get their opinion on the issue at stake. You are welcome to contact me as well: davem@sdcitybeat.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maassive (talk • contribs) 16:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Maass, You claimed that you have a conflict of interest since you wrote the story on Demaio's page so you can no longer edit the page, yet you gave your recommendations on what should be edited. If you don't understand the irony and inconsistency then I don't know how to help you. Eno hth (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Eno or whoever you are, this is EXACTLY how someone with a potential conflict of interest is supposed to handle it. They come to the talk page and ask other editors to make the edit if they find it valid. Please learn something about how Wikipedia works before criticizing others. And please respond to my comment below. --MelanieN (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

From Wikipedia policy on Conflict of Interest: "Those who feel the need to make controversial edits, in spite of a real or perceived conflict of interest, are strongly encouraged to submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk page". --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)3

His admission of bias doesn't discredit his suggestions automatically. There is no "irony" or "inconsistency", he is acknowledging that he may not be the most "neutral" person, but goes on to give neutral suggestions. He didn't make the changes flat out. He suggested them, and, with the consensus of the people watching this page, the changes were incorporated into the article. That means that the people that agreed perceived his suggestions as neutral. 2CrudeDudes (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have only recently started monitoring this page, and I am wary of any editor who has a COI. I think that MelanieN has a point that editors who have a conflict of interest should post their suggestion here first, get a consensus, make sure that it is written in a way that adheres to both POV and BLP rules, and then carry them out after all that.

That being said CityBeat's outright political opposition by the editorial staff means that anything from that source is to be taken with a grain of salt, and with additional references from other reliable sources in order to verify.

It would be the same way if an editor from DeMaoi's staff, or the chairperson or a central committee member of the San Diego County Republican Party, or chairperson or central committee member San Diego County Democratic Party were to start editing. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

References

Still at it???

Today I deleted a claim that was not supported by the references it cited - namely, the claim that DeMaio moved to San Diego "to draw attention to the city's budget and pension problems". The references not only don't support that claim, they state the opposite:

TB: You came to San Diego five years ago. Why San Diego? Did you know it was going to be a great case study in mismanagement?

CD: Actually, no. Southern California is my home, and I feel like a fish out of water when I’m in Washington, D.C. Also, my companies do a lot of conferences and forums for corporate executives, and they don’t want to go to Washington. They like San Diego.

TB: So San Diego’s dysfunctional government was just a bonus.

CD: When we originally conceived of The Performance Institute, we had just completed a state of California project where we uncovered raids on special funds, massive hidden deficits, debt being passed on from year to year, broken programs, a culture of incompetence. So we said let’s focus on something positive next; let’s go to a well-managed city.

Within hours my change was reverted without comment by a WP:Single purpose account named User:Eno hth. I am going to re-revert it and I expect them to come to the discussion page and defend their edit. --MelanieN (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

addition is sufficient with the citation provided. Thank you so much for your hard work and diligence on this page..... Eno hth (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with MelanieN that the sentence as is does not agree with either of :the two sources at the end of the sentence. DeMaio did not come back to San Diego to "to draw :attention to the city's budget and pension problems." Once he came here, he discovered these problems :and began attempting to fix them. XinJeisan (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The sentence as XinJeisan has revised it works for me. --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, it was Athene that revised the sentence. I think the current version is OK. But it would be rewriting history to claim that he "came here to draw attention to the city's budget and attention problems". He is on record as saying the opposite at the time, namely that he came here because he thought San Diego was so well managed. I'm glad you added the point about him giving the city an award for its management! --MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I did some revision along with User:Athene cunicularia. The source only says that he claimed that the budget deficit was higher than reported. is there a source that states the actual budget deficit for that year? XinJeisan (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Reason Public Policy Institute

I found this article: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1001/101001p1.htm stating that Carl DeMaio was the director of government redesign at the Reason Public Policy Institute in 2001. The article doesn't say anything about this -- and actually doesn't say what he was doing from 1999-2002. It would be good to look into to fill out this part of his career. XinJeisan (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Since all good articles should have both criticism and praise if appropriately sourced, DeMaio's article probably should have a general criticism section. This article from 2005: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050518/news_1n18carl.html could be used as a basis for that. Probably could expand the wikipedia controversy section to a more general criticism section. I think I have used up my daily allotment of wiki-editing time so I'll leave it to someone else to do so, if interested. XinJeisan (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It would definitely be good to turn the "Wikipedia controversy" section into a general controversy section, though I'd caution against itemizing every criticism that can be found on Google. If there are criticisms that his detractors repeat often, let's include them. Otherwise, we risk getting into WP:Coatrack territory. Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Carl DeMaio info from TPI article

I'm about to merge the TPI article into Thompson Publishing. here is the info from Carl DeMaio on that page. Most of it is pretty POV but in case anything is here that might be taken out and put into the main article I'll paste it here:

Carl DeMaio, the founder the Performance Institute, has dedicated his career to public service. Prior to forming the Institute, DeMaio spent five years on Capitol Hill working on strategic planning, budget reform, and government oversight initiatives with members of Congress. He founded the Performance Institute in 2000, where more than 10,000 individuals now attend the Institute's education programs annually and where research and position papers are generated which drive policies at the federal, state, and local levels of government.

DeMaio has served as an advisor to numerous elected leaders, including President George W. Bush and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. At the federal level, he is well known for his "Transition to Governance" report in 2000 that produced many of the ideas in the President's Management Agenda. At the state and local levels, he is the architect behind two "Citizens' Budget" plans — one in 2003 focusing on the State of California's budget crisis and one in 2004 focusing on reforming the City of San Diego. Both projects combined a thorough audit of government spending and performance and resulted in a mix of short-term and long-term reforms of the way government operates. The Citizens’ Budget approach has received significant media and public attention for engaging citizens in a meaningful way in reforming their government. The Orange County Register editorialized that the Citizens’ Budget would "lay the foundation for finding a sensible and lasting way out of the current crisis" and "the result would be a more efficient government and more business-friendly state."

DeMaio is now a City Councilman for the city of San Diego and a frequent speaker at conferences and events across the country. His work and commentary have appeared and been referenced on network television and in the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Sacramento Bee, Orange County Register, and the San Diego Union-Tribune. He resides in San Diego, California.

Can't believe I didn't sign the above when I posted it on Feb 20. XinJeisan (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Prop D

Today the San Diego Union-Tribune formally credited Carl DeMaio as the person who "led the campaign against" Proposition D, last year's sales tax. When DeMaio's added that claim unsourced into this page I recommended its deletion. Now that a major daily newspaper has made the claim, I think that it would be appropriate to reinsert it, but perhaps with the qualification that he was not the chairman of the No on D committee and that other driving forces for the campaign may disagree.

"Shortly after the voters’ thumping of the sales tax increase proposed in San Diego’s Proposition D last November, this editorial page called for Mayor Jerry Sanders, who had led the campaign in favor of it, and Councilman Carl DeMaio, who led the campaign against it, to work together to achieve the financial reforms that were still badly needed."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/mar/20/in-search-of-compromise/

I for one don't find the U-T's statement particularly credible since City Councilmember Donna Frye led the Prop D campaign as much as Mayor Sanders did, but that doesn't change the fact that the U-T said it.

Now all that said, I'll also say there is a case to be made that Prop D as a single failed ballot measure may not be historically notable enough for inclusion on this page.

- Maassive (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia would count the UT as a reliable source due to its a major newpaper but it was an editorial and not an actual new report so it shouldnt be added. Editorials are just someones POV which might not be Nuetral or someones opion. But I dont know if wikipedia has apolicy on editorials. But after reading the article this information isnt in it so im guessing it was removed before my comment. Spongie555 (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about: "In the fall of 2010, DeMaio campaigned against a proposal to boost the city's sales tax by a half-a-billion dollars over five years."

The proposal would have increased sales tax by a fraction of a percentage, should the article reflect this instead of the projected revenue? While the projected revenue may turn out to be accurate, it is still not a fact as of this writing. Just my opinion. 2CrudeDudes (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

District 5 wealth

Why is...

"District 5, with a median household income (as of 2008) of $95,211, is the second most wealthy district of San Diego's eight electoral districts. It includes the neighborhoods of...."

...included in an article about Carl DeMaio (and the second paragraph, no less)? What does this have to do with him? This isn't an article about District 5. I recommend removal. 2CrudeDudes (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The geographical boundaries of District 5 should be enough, eco-social, and racial demographics of the district is going above and beyond IMHO.

Before removing, let us give it some time (say 7, 10, or 14 days) for others to object, and/or wait for other interested editors to comment. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of primary sourced content

Although it is well known that Twitter is not a WP:RS, primary self published sources can be used if it is by the subject, and the language of the content indicates such. Should the tweet by the subject of the sentence, David Rolland, be included in this article as it is relevant regarding the secondary part of the paragraph?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello RightCowLeftCoast. I have at least two problems with using the tweet, and especially the previous editor's characterization of it.

• Saying "I've never denied I'm X" does not equal "I am X." I have never denied that I am a knight. Does that make me a knight? Unfortunately, Rolland's tweet "When have I ever denied that CB is on an anti-Carl crusade?" was summarized here as "Rolland stated that his publication was on an 'anti-carl crusade.'" The two are not the same.
• The section itself is about edits that Carl DeMaio's office made to his Wikipedia page. Those facts can be and have been verified. The section is not about David Rolland or CityBeat's opinion of Carl DeMaio, let alone in the form of an ambiguous tweet by Rolland. The article is about Carl DeMaio's actions. Whether CityBeat likes DeMaio doesn't change the fact that the councilman's office made favorable edits to his page.

Respectfully, Athene cunicularia (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is verified that DeMaio's office made favorable edits of the subject on this article, for balanced WP:POV, if it can be verified that CityBeat writes in a manor that opposes the subject of this article that to should be included.

I can see how the tweet was miss used in this case, if it can be further verified that CityBeat has an anti-DeMaio POV that should be included in the section as well. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your candid response. For balance, the section does includes the sentence "CityBeat has stated that 'we disagree with DeMaio’s foundational policy objectives,'" which is a pretty straightforward statement of disagreement. I'm not sure that Rolland's out-of-context tweet adds anything to that sentiment. To be honest, I'm not even sure that the statement itself is needed. However, I lean toward keeping it simply because it is essentially harmless, and it allows the reader to judge for themselves. IMO, balance in criticism is not about making everyone look equally bad, it is about being truthful in one's statements. There are no weasel words or misstatements in the section. Athene cunicularia (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Addition of "Reliable Source?" tag

I have removed the "reliable source" tag again. There are at least a few reasons why the blog post qualifies as a reliable source. First, the writer of the blog post, Dave Maass, is a reliable source. Second, San Diego CityBeat, which runs the blog, qualifies as a reliable source. Third, the statement that the source supports ("In the article, DeMaio's spokesman confirmed that his office had created and edited the page") is based on a direct quote by DeMaio's spokesman ("I apologize, I was not aware of Wikipedia’s policy"). Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As stated in the edit summary, because it is a blog (and especially due to CityBeat's stated opposition to the article's subject (something that is no longer included in this article)) it does not normally fall under WP:RS, and should be vetted via WP:RSN; this has not yet occurred, therefore the tag is appropriate IMHO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Being a blog does not preclude something from being a reliable source. An LA Times blog would not be an unreliable source; a Washington Post blog would not be an unreliable source. The purpose of the rule is to keep Joe Six Pack's Blogger account from being used as a citation, not an official blog from an established print newspaper that follows journalistic standards and has a record of reliability. Not only is the statement factual (per a direct quote from DeMaio representative), but the tag is inappropriate in this instance. Don't poison the well. Athene cunicularia (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What is not in question is the authenticity of the statement, but the reference used to verify said statement. In the reversion statement the edit summary stated:

it IS supported by WP:RSN.

— Athene cunicularia

If this is the case, where is the discussion on RSN?

As of the time of this posting there has been no discussion on RSN regarding "lastblogonearth", or anything regarding the subject of this article.

It maybe found that there is a consensus that the blog is a reliable source, but presently there is not a consensus that this particular blog is reliable. Now if there is a non-blog reliable source, this discussion would be moot.

Additionally, the opposition of CityBeat of the subject of this article is relevant.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

1) Then why not add "Last Blog on Earth" to the Reliable Source Noticeboard and see what happens? 2) As I said before, I don't necessarily mind if you want to include information about CityBeat's opposition to the candidate. However, rather than using a facetious Twitter post, I'd suggest something like "On several occasions, CityBeat has opposed DeMaio's candidacy for public office," and include a few citations (I'm sure they're not hard to find) from past SDCB voter guides. Athene cunicularia (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Georgetown Preparatory School

Could somebody please add his class year? Then he could be added to the "Notable Alumni" on the school's article. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you just use this link [1] as evidence? We wouldn't normally list the year of a person's graduation from prep school. --MelanieN (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, come to look at it, the article already contains that information: "After completing high school in 1993..." --MelanieN (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Bigoted attacks against Carl DeMaio

I'm wondering if these should be included on the page.

The San Diego ethics committee fined the SuperPac , Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, for creating the erroneous group called "Conservatives for Gay Rights supporting DeMaio for mayor" the group was set-up by Democratic consultant, Jesus Cardenas , and Democratic organizer, Cynara Velazquez, both of whom work(ed) on Filmer's 2012 campaign and David Alvarez's current mayoral campaign. The most recent fine was imposed as the group photoshopped DeMaio into a group of drag queens and then sent the fake photos to elderly and black communities in an effort to suppress DeMaio's support. The same SuperPac was also fined in 2012 for setting-up robo-calls 6 days before the election and asked "are you voting for Filmer or DeMaio?" if the answer was Filmer the phone call ended, if they said DeMaio, the call then proceeded to ask questions like "if you knew DeMaio was the first openly gay man elected to our San Diego Council, would you still vote for him?"

Read the article: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Oct/11/gay-baiting-carl-demaio-ads-revealed/?#article-copy

When DeMaio was asked why no LGBT groups came to his aid, he said "Despite claims that they insist on tolerance, diversity, and acceptance for all, I suspect they want to keep their alliance with unions so they don't upset their funding source.The democratic groups need to keep the GOP as the bogeyman, because if republicans are no longer a threat, they'll lose all funding."

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/04/28/california-house-race-no-one-puts-gay-republican-carl-demaio-in-corner/

76.4.109.9 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.109.9 (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for calling attention to this, and for supplying references. We can't use the Fox News reference - it is an opinion piece by a person with connections to DeMaio, so it's not neutral. But the U-T piece is researched and neutral. Although this stuff made the news, briefly, I'm inclined to say it doesn't belong in the article. It would require a lot of explanation, which would overwhelm the "Campaign for mayor" section - currently only three paragraphs, about the campaign itself and a couple of endorsements. And it's not the type of thing we normally include. Groups send out mailers and hit pieces and robocalls all the time, and we don't usually mention them in the article unless they received a lot of media attention or there is hard evidence that they influenced the election. This case - a group trying to undermine him by pretending to support him - is pretty disgusting. But it didn't get much media attention and there's no evidence it had an influence on the outcome, and thus it probably doesn't rise to the level of getting included here. (P.S. You are mistaken in calling the superpac "the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee". That committee does not appear anywhere in the story.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia controversy

Is a Wikipedia edit war really notable enough to include on Carl DeMaio's page, let alone merit it its own section? While this may have been interesting enough to draw a couple of local media mentions at the time, I'm not sure that it is notable enough to continue to include it in the article. What do others think? mcd51 (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I see that you went ahead and deleted it (since nobody commented). I think that is probably OK. At the time it seemed notable, but a lot of more important things have happened since, and the incident has not had lasting impact. (Full disclosure: I was one of the people mentioned in the press coverage about the controversy.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I was just about to add a comment on why I deleted it, but you beat me to it with the justification I was going to give. mcd51 (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I see that User:Athene cunicularia added it back, and you deleted it again. How about this as a compromise: I have added the three articles about the Wikipedia controversy to the top of this page in a "media mentions" section. That will preserve the information but take it out of the article page (where I agree that it probably doesn't belong any more). --MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems fine. mcd51 (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I would argue for reinclusion on the article page because, as DeMaio is currently campaigning for office, the actions of his campaign and its use of media take on renewed importance. Maybe that won't be true 30 years from now when DeMaio is retired, but I think it's true now. Secondly, inclusion in the main article may serve as a prophylactic against similar attempts (see, e.g., edit by WTAG83) during the current campaign. KFM2 (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I was OK with deleting it, but I should really recuse myself from this discussion because I was named as an involved party in the controversy. Anyone else who watches this page care to weigh in? User:Mcd51? User:Athene cunicularia? --MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe the actions of a staff member, which were not widely reported, are notable for his BLP.CFredkin (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my original comments from last year. It seems like too much of a meta-Wikipedia controversy that has already been handled appropriately. mcd51 (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, all--I think consensus is to leave it out.KFM2 (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Astroturfing/puffery/one-sidedness

I understand this article started as puff piece, with much of the puffery removed by MelanieN et al. In line with keeping the article simple, I think there is some more puffery that needs removing:

Citizens Budget Project

The article gives good placement to a claim that DeMaio was a member of the "Citizens Budget Project," but this "project" appears to be nothing more than an astroturf "initiative" of DeMaio's own company, the "Performance Institute" (see http://www.performanceinstitute.org/2008/08/05/san-diego-citizens-budget-plan/), sponsored, directed, and funded in large part by DeMaio himself, and dissolved/reformed at his convenience (see http://ballotpedia.org/San_Diego_Citizens_for_Accountable_Government). I vote to remove the astroturf, or alternatively, to start a new section that lists and clarifies DeMaio's various interlinked businesses/think tanks/front groups. KFM2 (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I found some additional info on the CBP and incorporated that into the article. I'm still in favor of removing or somehow reorganizing the budget stuff into something more digestible.KFM2 (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the Citizens Budget Project stuff is puffery and inconsequentional. Currently the paragraph says

DeMaio is known for his advocacy of change in San Diego's budget process.[7] In 2004, DeMaio led the "Citizens Budget Project," an initiative of the Performance Institute to analyze and reform San Diego's budget.[8] The CBP ultimately produced a report detailing possible budget reforms,[citation needed] but lost support from two of three co-sponsors who cited inaccuracies and misrepresentations by DeMaio.[8] He has also lobbied for a federal law that would impose rules on public pension plans modeled after ERISA.[9]

I would like to delete the second and third sentences and leave the paragraph just saying

DeMaio is known for his advocacy of change in San Diego's budget process.[7] He has also lobbied for a federal law that would impose rules on public pension plans modeled after ERISA.[9]

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't feel strongly either way.CFredkin (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that sounds like consensus. I will make the change. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

His childhood

I have always been very dubious of his Oliver Twist-like childhood stories - abandoned, taken in by Jesuits, etc. Now reading sources I find that some of the facts provided are contradictory - for example, how old he was when his mother died. This reference says she died when he was 13, whereupon his father abandoned the family. So does this one, adding that the father was abusive. But the article says she died in 1990, when he would have been 15 or 16. This source confirms age 15 and says he was the one who severed ties with his father. The wording used everywhere, "taken in by Jesuits", makes him sound like some abandoned waif, not like a teenager of 15. I'm just not sure what to believe, and (more to the point) how much about his childhood we should include in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@KFM2:, what are you doing? You have deleted all the stuff about his childhood from the article, but we do not have consensus to do so. Any changes should be discussed here before putting them in the article. You said "more to come" indicating you are still working on it, but I am going to revert your changes; please discuss before continuing. --MelanieN (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Sorry, didn't mean to offend or that the change would be controversial. I believe all the childhood stuff is still there (some moved to a new paragraph at bottom of the section), with the exception of the 'taken in by Jesuits' line, which (far I can tell) appears to be campaign lingo for the fact that he was enrolled at the Georgetown Prep boarding school. I could find nothing (and no sources have been provided, to my knowledge) that he had any other serious connection to Jesuits. Could you perhaps let me know which, if any, facts you think were deleted improperly? --KFM2 (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

His childhood should go in chronologic order in the first paragraph, not stuck in at the end of the paragraph. His mother died when he was 15, not 13. I've done some more research. I think this is reliable: he attended a Catholic military school in Irvine, then got a scholarship to Georgetown Prep in 1989. The school in Irvine only goes through eighth grade, so his transition to Georgetown would have been a normal progression from middle school to high school, not anything based on his personal situation. Since his mother died in 1990 that means he was already attending Georgetown when she died, so I agree, let's dump the "taken in by Jesuits" bit. Here's what I propose for that first paragraph (and please do let's continue to discuss changes here before making them in the article):

DeMaio was born in 1974 in Dubuque, Iowa to a pair of teachers, Carl Joseph DeMaio and Diane M. DeMaio (née Elgin). He spent his early childhood in Orange County, California, where his family moved in the late 1970s. He attended St. Catherine's Military Academy, a Catholic school in Anaheim, through eighth grade; in 1989 he got a scholarship to Georgetown Preparatory School. His mother died in 1990, two weeks after his father abandoned the family. He graduated from Georgetown Prep in 1993, then attended Georgetown University, where he received a degree in International Politics and Business.

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Well, I'm not sure that any changes to this paragraph by either of us are so controversial that they need to be consensused to death in talk. It would seem to me that that would be reserved for times when there is genuine disagreement--but you've been doing this for a long time, so I'll defer to how you want to proceed. Your revision is plainly superior to what's there now, so I have no problems with using your version in its entirety for now, nor do I think you need to wait for further consensus.

I think the 'early childhood' and 'family moved' phrases are less egregious in your new version, but they could/should still be excised because (a) 'early childhood' is ambiguous, unnecessary, and possibly incorrect (early childhood to me includes years 3-6 or so, at least some of which was in Iowa, if we are to believe the 'late 1970s' bit), (b) 'family moved' is unnecessary (he was 3-6 years old, so obviously he moved with his family--it would only be notable only if he didn't), and (c) both were added by POV/COI user 'San Diego Watchdog' over much simpler, more concise language (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_DeMaio&diff=408656173&oldid=406023424), and I think there should be a thumb on the scale against COI/self-interested edits. My (now reverted) edit had simpler language that expressed the same facts with less campaign prose.

Also, I'm okay with a straight chronological approach, but (contrary to your statement) a blended topic-based approach (e.g., birth, residence, education, career, family) is not wrong, either. That's how they do it in obits, and my "more to come" was to fill out/fix the family section. But your version reads well, too, so whatever. That said, although I left it in my (now reverted) edit, the 'father abandoned' language is (a) not supported by the citybeat source (which says only the father was abusive); (b) possibly incorrect (I think I saw an article that said the mother filed a TRO against the dad, which means he was probably forced out, not 'abandoned'); (c) uncorroborated (I haven't seen a source yet where anyone has any evidence other than DeMaio's own statements); and (d) yet more verbatim campaign lingo inserted by "San Diego Watchdog." I'd remove that bit, too. --KFM2 (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been doing this long enough to recognize when an article has a potential for edit warring - and to prevent it by discussion first. I agree about "early childhood", and "family moved" is fine. About his father, how about just "his father is estranged"? That much seems to be pretty clear. Who exactly kicked out or abandoned who does seem to be in doubt. I think I'll go ahead and do it with that change, it sounds like you would agree. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Life and business career

Suggestions: 1. Move political intership to 'political career' section. 2. Reword 'landing a job' phrase, which was inserted by DeMaio campaign. 3. Delete "...as a result of his work with the Performance Institute" as unsupported (because, of the two sources linked, CityBeat says nothing about his motivation, and SDMagazine source quotes him as saying a major, perhaps primary motivation, was he wanted to come back home: "Southern California is my home, and I feel like a fish out of water when I’m in Washington, D.C." http://www.sandiegomagazine.com/San-Diego-Magazine/April-2007/Carl-DeMaio/. 4. Restore 'controversial' to "DeMaio is known for his *controversial* advocacy of change in San Diego's budget process," since source repeatedly goes out of its way to note strong reactions (both for and against) to DeMaio and his proposals. Consider expanding into a general paragraph on DeMaio's pre-Council budget stances, including his release of proposals and their reception. The stuff discovered about Citizens Budget Project (now deleted) may be useful. --KFM2 (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

1. Actually those were jobs, not political positions. I think of "political" as meaning holding or running for office.

2. Agree, done.

3. Agree, I deleted the phrase; the reason it was in there is historical. The old (pre-cleanup) version of the article used to claim he came here to clean up San Diego's budget problems, which is contradicted by the sources and by the fact that he gave the city a good government award. He was kind of embarrassed about that afterward. (For a laugh you ought to take a look at some of the versions of the page before the cleanup squad arrived; for example, this one.)

4. Agree, I restored "controversial".

5. I'm inclined to think his budget projects and budget proposals were not notable and were mainly self-aggrandizing. So I favor keeping that stuff deleted, but I could be persuaded otherwise. --MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I see that @CFredkin: objects to the word "controversial", stating that it isn't in the source. But IMO what IS in the source demonstrates that his ideas are controversial. The source says "Some who initially supported DeMaio's efforts – Murphy, the San Diego County Taxpayers Association and the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce – complain that his data and analysis are faulty, and they have broken ties with him. Even the Reason Foundation, a Libertarian think tank with which DeMaio worked on research projects since 1999, dropped out of his San Diego Citizens' Budget Project last year. The project seeks to improve the city's budget process and management. "We don't need to be in the middle of the battle," David Nott, the foundation's president, recalled thinking. "What Carl does is Carl's business." " Doesn't that sound like controversy over his ideas? Is there a better word to suggest that a lot of people disagree with his ideas? --MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. Based on your explanation, I've self-reverted.CFredkin (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Pension Reform Initiative

The section is important and deserves ample space, but I think it has an awful lot of DeMaio campaign/partisanship in it. Suggestions:

(1) First paragraph: "Driving force" bit should be deleted because it is unsourced and disputable (see also note 3). Just say he sponsored or co-sponsored or whatever.

(2) First paragraph: Reword description of prop B to use the Prop's own description of itself (http://www.sandiego.gov/city-clerk/elections/city/pdf/retirementcharteramendment.pdf), along the lines of "Proposition B proposed (1) limiting of compensation used to calculate city employee pension benefits; (2) eliminating defined-benefit pensions for many new city employees, substituting a defined-contribution (401(k)-style) plan; (3) requiring substantially equal pension contributions from the City and employees; and (4) eliminating the right of employees/retirees to vote to change their benefits."

(3) Second paragraph: That DeMaio authored the text or was "the" (i.e., sole) central figure is unsupported by source and possibly incorrect (from what I can tell, the final prop text was based on compromise language between two competing proposals, one by DeMaio and one by the mayor--see http://ballotpedia.org/San_Diego_Pension_Reform_Initiative,_Proposition_B_(June_2012), but see also http://www.kusi.com/story/14322160/city-leaders-propose-pension-reforms-for-the-june-ballot (saying negotiations broke down)--and supported by all of them. Not sure what to believe. I think delete the whole first sentence, and dedicate that paragraph solely to the ballot signature issue.

(4) Third paragraph: Recommend deletion because it's (a) duplicative of the description in paragraph 1 and (b) wholly unsourced.

(5) For readability, move the fourth paragraph (fiscal impact) up to just after the prop description and just before the ballot signature paragraph. --KFM2 (talk) 07:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

1) Actually "driving force" IS sourced, to the reference at the end of the paragraph. And the article itself says who called him that (the San Diego Reader, no friend of DeMaio's so not puffery). And it's pretty much true, per sources and per my recollection. DeMaio was the one who led the signature drive and personally turned in the signatures. DeMaio was the public face of the initiative. Pretty much every source that mentions the initiative mentions DeMaio in the same sentence. It really was his baby and he really was the "central force" behind it, as the article says later. I think "driving force" should stay in as it is both sourced and true.

2) I agree with using the city's description.

3) DeMaio really was the one pushing this initiative, and I do believe he wrote the language or most of it. Ballotpedia is not a Reliable Source. The KUSI source you give confirms that there at first were two initiative proposals, one from the mayor and Faulconer, the other from DeMaio. There apparently was some compromise so that Faulconer and Sanders wound up supporting it,[2] but the one that went on the ballot was still pretty much credited to DeMaio, even by Sanders himself.

4) I agree with deleting this if you use the city's description.

5) I agree with moving the fiscal impact paragraph to right after the description.

My own comment: I think the article would read better if the first paragraph consisted of its first sentence ("According to...") followed by the whole second paragraph ("DeMaio authored...). Then the second paragraph would describe what the initiative did (combining the rest of the current first paragraph with the current third paragraph in some form, using the ballot language as you suggested). The third paragraph for the fiscal impact. The fourth paragraph how it passed.

Bottom line is that this really was DeMaio's signature accomplishment in the city and it was close to a solo performance on his part. It's not puffery to have the article reflect that.

Keeping these comments in mind, I'm OK with you going ahead and doing revisions to the section as discussed. --MelanieN (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The cost estimates in the voter pamphlet include estimates over a 6 year period and estimates over a 30 year period. We can't combine those 2 numbers.CFredkin (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I suggest we include both the "proponent" numbers and the budget analyst numbers. Both are sourced. Let readers interpret. --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to take a shot at editing to break out the numbers. But I don't think I'll have time to do it until later today.CFredkin (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Me either. I would just say that the "numbers" shouldn't get into TMI detail. A sentence, or at most two, for each of the two sources. Anything more would be WP:UNDUE IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Re numbers: Doesn't the ballot guide do our job for us by providing a range of possible/reasonable outcomes that encapsulate both proponents and opponents estimates? I'm not sure what additional value there is to including proponents' figures, especially if we aren't going to include opponents' argument(s) against.

@CFredkin: I think you misread either the prop or my summary. The guide makes clear that six years is the duration of Prop B's salary basis freeze itself, but their fiscal impact analysis of pension savings is in fact full 30-year: "Potential savings from freezing salaries for six years (July 1, 2012 through June 20, 2018) are projected to be $963 million over 30 years, or $581 million when adjusted for inflation." [Emphasis mine] You can sanity-check that yourself because there is no way that a 6-year inflation discount would knock off 40% of the value. Thus, I do believe that $581M and -$56M can be added together, because both are expressly 30-year inflation-adjusted.KFM2 (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. After reading the doc again, I agree with the statement above. However, I think it would be more accurate to say the following:

San Diego's City Attorney estimated that Proposition B would cost the city $54 million in its first three years of implementation, with overall 30-year inflation-adjusted savings up to $525 million. The savings could be less if the City Council overrode the employee salary freeze with a 2/3 vote from 2012 to 2018. CFredkin (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia doesn't allow original research. IMO NONE of this calculation should go in the article if it isn't in the source. Let's just say what the budget analyst said, in as close to their own words as possible; and say what the proponents claimed (I think we could even use the word "claimed" in this case); and not do any kind of math or comparison. Just let the numbers stand. --MelanieN (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

MelanieN, I think that's setting the bar too low for original research. I would think that adding two numbers (when the source expressly says they have divided the prop into two components, and put both components in the same units of 30-year-real-value) is a routine calculation, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations. I believe CFredkin and I are in agreement that 525 is "obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection" of the analysis--are you in disagreement?

CFredkin, I believe my original summary is more concise and more accurate since (1) it's the Budget Analyst, not the City Attorney; (2) "savings up to $525" does not adequately reflect the downside risk/opponents position--I believe fairness requires the full range should be given, not just potential upside; and (3) I think just saying "depending on implementation" is sufficient, without going into the weeds of implementation details (of which you have left out a few, including "actual DC plan structure" and "program design"). -- KFM2 (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have made the other changes in the section suggested here. I will leave it to the two of you to work out the wording for the financial projections. (Keeping in mind that the best way to keep it neutral is to use ONLY what the source says, without any added analysis - but if the two of you agree on a wording I am fine with that.) That should be the third of the four paragraphs in the section. --MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

A couple notes re the (new) first paragraph: the 'driving force' link is dead/403, and the official title of the prop is "Amendments to the San Diego City Charter Affecting Retirement Benefits", per the ballot guide. What do you think of combining the two sentences like so: "DeMaio was the primary author of San Diego's June 2012 Proposition B, officially titled "Amendments to the San Diego City Charter Affecting Retirement Benefits," and led the drive to put it on the ballot." (Could delete the wordy 'officially.') --KFM2 (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Dead? The link (#23, Voice of San Diego) works for me. --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, very weird: 403 Forbidden on all voiceofsandiego.org, but only on my preferred browser (Opera). Just went there with IE and it came up okay. So that's a little sketchy, but I'm fine with that source now. I'd still think about rewording the sentence, though. --KFM2 (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@MelanieN:, do you have objections to the proposed wording? At the least, I think we should correct the factual error in the title sooner rather than later. --KFM2 (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with that wording, but I do think we should keep the sources #23 (Voice of San Diego) and #24 (NBC San Diego) as well as adding a link to the ballot guide. --MelanieN (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I implemented your suggestions, but ended up finding some factual errors in the NBC SD article (see point 6 below), so I deleted that bit for now. --KFM2 (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@CFredkin: Do you have further opinion on the numbers question? Since the 6-year-versus-30-year objection to my original language has been retracted, I think we can put my language back in the article. And, to the extent that anyone wishes to discuss stylistic edits or additional language (e.g., proponents arguments), those can be discussed here and added if/when appropriate and agreed, right? --KFM2 (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

User:KFM2, I'm still not comfortable with your wording, as I don't think it accurately represents the situation. The projected savings will accrual unless the SD City Council overrides the will of the people with a 2/3 vote.CFredkin (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

CFredkin, that is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about when I said not to get too deep into the weeds about the financial projections. "Depending on implementation" covers it. Keep it simple and not WP:UNDUE is my !vote. --MelanieN (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(6) The article contained this line about ballot signatures: "Because the reform required a change to the City of San Diego’s charter, the signatures of 94,000 voters (5% of the city’s electorate) were needed to gain access to the ballot. Ultimately, DeMaio submitted 145,000 signatures," citing to http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/politics/Carl-DeMaio-San-Diego-Pension-Reform-Initiative-130868953.html. There are two problems I see:

(a) 94,000 smelled fishy to me. 94,000 can't possibly be 5% of SD's electorate, because that would imply SD has about 3.7 million people. So I looked at the San Diego election site, and they say the requirement is actually 15%, which sure enough equals 99,019 in 2014. (See http://www.sandiego.gov/city-clerk/elections/process/, click on "Current Signature Requirements.") I think the original source simply made an error and typed 5% when they meant 15%. Unfortunately, I could not find a source that expressly said 15% in 2012, which is what we need. I suppose we could cite to the relevant California Election Code.

(b) The NBCSD source said there were 145,000 signatures, but every other source (including NBCSD at a later date) said 116,000 signatures. See http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Feb/12/sd-pension-ruling-perb/ (116,000); http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Proposition-B-Pension-Reform-Process-Faulted-by-Labor-Agency-Judge-191136161.html (116,000); http://www.ocregister.com/articles/pension-498192-city-reform.html (DeMaio quoted as saying over 50,000); http://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/02/perb-smacks-down-prop-b-pension-reform-initiative-ruling-explained/ ("over 115,000"). My guess is that the 145,000 (if it ever existed) was before fraud detection, and it got reduced to 116k once they deleted duplicates/invalids. Presumably we'd prefer to go with 116k, rather than use 145k and need a caveat about some being deleted as fraudulent, right?

So what do you think? We could just drop in 15% and 116,000, but I don't see any sources expressly saying 15% in 2012 or that the 116,000 were handed in by DeMaio in particular. We do have sources for saying simply "94,000" (no percentage) and "supporters" (not DeMaio particularly) turned in 116,000. Or maybe just scrap the whole sentence? --KFM2 (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Good detective work. Since everyone agrees on the 94,000 number I would use that, with no percentage. I would talk around the number submitted. And I would use a different reference since the accuracy of the first one is in doubt. How about something like this, and make it the last paragraph in the section: "Because the reform required a change to the City of San Diego’s charter, the signatures of 94,000 voters were needed to gain access to the ballot.(reference) DeMaio and other supporters of the measure turned in more than enough signatures and the measure went to a vote on June 5, 2012. It was approved by San Diego voters by a 2-to-1 margin.(reference) --MelanieN (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW I'm going to be away from the computer for a couple of weeks, so don't wait for me to chime in before deciding what to do. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Recent edit war about where to list "gay"

Several of you have been reverting each other about whether to put "openly gay" in the lead paragraph of the article. The fact that he is gay is already cited in the main body of the text. To find out how we generally do this, I checked the pages of several other LGBT politicians from the San Diego area. I found that in three out of four cases (Todd Gloria, Christine Kehoe and Dave Roberts) that fact is NOT mentioned in the lead paragraph, only in the body of the text. In the fourth case (Toni Atkins) the fact that she is a lesbian was mentioned in the lead only because it was a significant "first" for some of her positions. So I have concluded that it is not Wikipedia practice to put this in the lead unless it has particular relevance to their notability. I deleted it. Also, there is no need for the breathlessly exclamatory item from the National Journal that kept being added to External Links; that's the wrong place for it, and his orientation is already cited to Reliable Sources in the body of the article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This is correct per WP:OPENPARAGRAPH:

Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.

All that being said, if the subject of this article becomes the first openly homosexual Republican congressperson, than that might be relevant to the subject's notability; as that is not presently the case, and the subject's notability isn't tied to their sexual preference, than per MOS, it should be excluded, and be noted in the body of the article (as is presently the case).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

2012 endorsement

I have reverted a good faith edit per WP:BURDEN. I have only been able to find a single endorsement prior to the 2012 primary, and had previously added it as a reliable source to the article. I have yet to find this alleged second SDUT front page endorsement, if others can, please add it and then edit the content. Otherwise the text "before the June 2012 primary and published two front-page endorsements" can not be verified and thus should not be in the article.
I have seen a verbatim statement "published two front-page endorsements of DeMaio." from the AP, however that does not give a time frame of it occurring before the June 2012 primary. There is a claim made by the VoSD, however I have not been able to find it verified directly from the UT, which regularly publishes their printed articles online, and have only been able to find one editorial before the June 2012 primary. Therefore, given that this is a biography of a living person, and that I cannot find this second endorsement editorial, until it can be found, I say we exclude it until it is found, if it in-fact exist.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Boy, you are a tough sell! 0;-D You've got both the AP and the Voice of San Diego saying there were two, but you demand to see both of them in the Tribune's own records? Here is what I found on a search of the UT archives: The actual editorial is here [3] and is dated Saturday, May 5. There are two sets of followup letters to the editor which refer to the editorial as having been published on Sunday, May 6. [4] [5]. (The letters also confirm that it was wrapped around the outside of the paper rather than printed on the front page.) How to reconcile this seeming discrepancy of one editorial vs. two editorials: It seems likely that the U-T did this wraparound section twice, once on Saturday May 5 and once on Sunday May 6. In any case I think there is enough here to accept the word of two non-Tribune sources that the editorial was published twice. In any case I don't see how this is a BLP issue; are you contending that it is somehow damaging to DeMaio's reputation if the U-T published two endorsements vs. just one? --MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I have restored the language "published a front page endorsement" since the only point at issue seems to be whether there was one endorsement editorial or two. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The May 5 web publishing of the editorial is one I added to the article, and is a primary source. Letters to the editor are not reliable sources, as they can be seen as WP:SPS, while it can be a primary source verifying that an individual has an opinion on something, it is not a reliable source IMHO to verifying that there were two separate front-page wrap around editorials concerning the endorsement of the subject of this article.

Furthermore, how can we verify, using the internet link to the 5 May 2012 editorial, is a wrap around front page endorsement? If there were a picture that verifies it, then I say the new wording added here make sense.

As a compromise we can include the claim by the VoSD, as stating that they are the one making the claim that there were "two front-page editorials backing DeMaio in the primary.", but without the primary sources verifying there were in fact two, it's just a claim. And given that this is a BLP such claims need to be well sourced.

It's bad enough that the section was originally written as a coat rack smear against the publisher of the SDUT; thankfully that has been changed.

It would be like including every time the Huffington Post or the VoSD were mentioned, mentioning the political affiliation of that news organizations owner.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The date in in the letters to the editor could be a date added by the U-T, as is their usual practice when a letter writer mentions an earlier story they are responding to. In any case, if the letter writer had put in an incorrect date, the U-T would have corrected it before publishing the letter. In the first "letters" link I provided, the second letter mentions May 6 in the text, and the third letter begins "So the U-T endorses Carl DeMaio for mayor (May 6)". By publishing these letters to the editor giving that date, the U-T in effect confirmed it. The second letters-to-the-editor link also gives the date as May 6, using the format usually used by the U-T when they add the info to the letter themselves: "The U-T San Diego’s Editorial Board made an excellent decision when it endorsed Carl DeMaio for San Diego city mayor (Opinion, May 6)." I think it's pretty clear that the U-T is confirming a May 6 editorial. Your primary source says May 5. It could be argued that it was the SAME editorial, published twice on consecutive days, and so not really two separate editorials.

In the fourth letter at that first link, the writer specifically talks about the wraparound nature of the endorsement. ("When I first saw the Carl DeMaio endorsement I thought it was another of those front-page ads. Then I realized you had moved an opinion piece off the editorial page to front and center. Candidate endorsements belong on the editorial page not on the half first page of the paper.") Again, the U-T published this letter; if the editorial had NOT been on the "first half page of the paper", i.e., the wraparound, the U-T would have corrected the letter or not run it. (Clarifying "Another of those front page ads": If you subscribe to the paper edition of the U-T, as I do, you know that the paper is usually delivered with a one-and-a-half page wraparound around the first section. That wraparound is usually of a paid commercial nature, but in the DeMaio case it was editorial. The only other time I can remember the paper doing an editorial wraparound section is when they used it to promote a downtown commercial development that the paper favored.)

Anyhow, are you OK with the current wording, which says "published a front page endorsement"? It seems the only thing you are still arguing about is the claim that there were two endorsements, and I am OK with "a" front page endorsement, assuming it was the same editorial published on two days. --MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think, given that the letters to the editor should not be taken as reliable sources, but as primary sources of opinions of the writers, and do not go through as strict of editorial overview as demanded in WP:IRS, that we can verify that an endorsement has taken place, but a two page front page wrap around publication cannot be verified.

I am not saying that it might not have happened, I don't subscribe to physical papers anymore (in this case the U-T), what I am saying is that we do not have a reliable source that verifies it. The AP source says that there are two endorsements, but doesn't give a time frame; the VoSD source says there were two front-page endorsements, but we can only verify one. If we want to include that VoSD claim, then quote the claim, IMHO. At the same time, show that there is only one primary source to a single SDUT primary endorsement. Include both sides, better to allow the reader to read both and evaluate the sources themselves, then for us to do the evaluating for them.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

So in other words, the section is fine as it is? It already puts the VoSD stuff in quotes, as you want, and it appears that there is plenty of confirmation for the fact that there was an endorsement, that it was before the June primary, and that it was on the front page. I just changed the word "editorials" in the second sentence to "endorsement," so as not to be saying in Wikipedia's voice that there were plural editorials. So are we done here? --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It's satisfactory, IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

This edit is not supported by the source provided.CFredkin (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If vandalism increases as the election moves up, we should take this article to WP:RFP. Right now it is unlikely to be approved do to the low level of vandalism.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

First, let's be clear: those edits are not vandalism. This appears to be a content dispute. I see that as a good faith edit; it's supported by sources which unfortunately we can't see, so I concur with reverting it. However, there is no evidence that the IP is vandalizing or acting in bad faith. Of course if they approach 3RR territory that would be a different matter.

Second, I agree with RCLC. This article doesn't need protection. In fact it is pretty stable compared to many articles about currently running politicians. Nothing that a few of us watchlisting it can't handle. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Um. I have the book cited as the source in my possession. The content is not in there. It's not a content dispute, it's a WP:verifiability dispute. (The IP has done the same thing in at least one other bio.) If the IP continues to exist that the reference exists, he/she can post a scanned copy of the page from the book.CFredkin (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I was assuming good faith about the reference; assumption of good faith is sometimes wrong. In any case, I posted a note on the person's talk page explaining why we deleted it and saying we need a linkable online source before including it. BTW the earlier addition of the same material was made by a "different" IP. Another reason to be cautious about AGF in this case. --MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if I would use the word "vandalism" either, but the IP did do a similar thing on the Dan Sullivan (politician, born 1964) page. I chronicled my attempt to find the reference here and I asked the IP to help out here. By "similar thing", I mean "inserting a sentence that asserts a fact about the subject of the article, adding a footnote to validate that fact that does not hotlink to a source where you, me or the Man in the Moon could go and look at the article to see if the alleged fact exists in that source". In the case of the Carl DeMaio article, the alleged fact is in a book. In the case of the Dan Sullivan article, it is a weekly newspaper published in Alaska. The difference is that in the case of the Alaskan newspaper, PDFs of the editions of the newspaper are at least available online (although the IP did not link to them). When I looked at the edition with the date indicated by the IP, I couldn't find any article corresponding to the one the IP said was in that edition. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good reason to keep an eye on, and possibly challenge, any edits made by the IP 179.61.194.112. And possibly the IP 64.187.235.86 who asserted the same thing at this article last week. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. When I saw what he/she had done at Dan Sullivan, I took advantage of a recent trip to the public library to check out the book cited here. My personal opinion is that this is the worst form of vandalism because it's so insidious and difficult to detect.CFredkin (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Response to sexual harassment allegations

The statement that Hueso was a political opponent of DeMaio is supported by the following in the U-T San Diego source already provided: "At the time, they were both on the City Council and had sharp disagreements over many issues." Also both sources mention the fact that Hueso is a Democrat.CFredkin (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, just a comment, CFredkin: you restored the information to the article with the edit summary "Restore per Talk discussion". That was incorrect: there had been no discussion, just the above assertion by you. We may be getting into some issues of disagreement between editors here; when that happens it's especially important that edit summaries be accurate. With that out of the way, I think you may be right that the information should be included, since the sources include it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I, too, was curious about the talk 'discussion.' Thanks for clarifying, MelanieN. Your suggestion sounds fair. To the extent that there appears to be disagreement on issues, I will restore to the preexisting versions before disagreement. (So for now we revert my delection of the Budget Project bit and revert CFredkin's edits to the bathroom thing.) As we come to consensus here, we can agree to make changes in the article. Sound okay?

As to substance, I'm not very skilled in editing, but for controversial issues, unless we are going to write (and police!) a complete NPOV workup of all sides, then doesn't it make sense to note the issue as simply and squarely as possible, without selective inclusion of one-sided facts/characterizations, and leave it at that? In the bathroom thing, to me that means stating the accusation and the denial ('vicious rumor'), without trying to color or influence the discussion with partisanship (which is incorrect, since Hueso and DeMaio were non-partisan at the time of the events and when Hueso first made the accusation), hyperbole (having 'sharp disagreements' on some issues makes one a 'political opponent'? Well, CFredkin and I may disagree on some things, so are we now political opponents?), or selectivity (If we go down the road with DeMaio's evidence against the accusation (e.g., polygraph), then on what basis do we not put in the evidence for the accusation (e.g., behavior known to "everybody" at the time, other council member(s) supporting the accusation, strange wording of the polygraph questions)?) On controversial things, I would much prefer to flag the controversy and let the reader follow links/refs to the extent they want to know more. CFredkin, if you think the bathroom thing requires more details, then perhaps you can draft and propose a complete, sourced workup of *all* sides of the issue?KFM2 (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to include baseless allegations, we need to include the context from the sources.CFredkin (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

"Baseless" is your opinion. Here is mine: I would actually rather see the whole "bathroom controversy" deleted from the article. From a BLP standpoint, if nothing else - since nothing was ever confirmed, and it didn't have any lasting impact or significance. I don't think articles about politicians need to include everything their opponents say about them, unless they have lasting consequences or are at least confirmed by third parties. Alternatively, we could keep two sentences with the allegation (including "Democrat" since sources use it) and the denial ("vicious rumor"), period. Leave out the polygraph which is worthless (whoever is paying the polygraph examiner can get them to say whatever the customer wants). In any case, I'm glad we are discussing and not edit warring. Thanks to you both for that. --MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I definitely agree with the rationale for leaving the whole thing out. However if it stays in, I think the polygraph should also stay in. Readers can draw their own conclusions as to its validity. (Just as they can for the allegation.)CFredkin (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

That's two of us that would like to see the whole issue removed. Is that consensus? Anyone else want to weigh in? --MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I would support exclusion per WP:RECENTISM & WP:BLP. If it becomes a significant point, it can be added in a well reference and neutrally stated content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like consensus to me. I have deleted the whole paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this. It is clearly a major issue as evidenced by the fact that it has been widely reported by both local and national media. That list includes nbcsandiego.com, 10news.com, voiceofoc.com, utsandiego.com, nypost.com, huffingtonpost.com, sandiegoreader.com, voiceofsandiego.com, mediaite.com, dailykos.com, msn.com, thehill.com. At very least it deserves mention. It seems that the issue is purposely trying to be scrubbed by people without a neutral POV on the matter. That is deeply troubling. Tomtom284 (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Non-endorsement

Why is it relevant that the subject did not receive an endorsement? This is not about the subject, and thus should not be included, nor should it have been re-added. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It's extremely unusual and consequently notable that the Chamber of Commerce endorses a Democrat or refuses a solicited endorsement to a Republican in a general election. This is almost on the order of the abandonment of Republican David Duke in the 1991 Louisiana gubernatorial runoff. The Chamber based its endorsement in this race on the candidates position on the government shutdown and trade agreements, if memory serves. The U-T on the other hand seems to be avoiding any coverage of the harassment issue, though I doubt if it had less than a hundred articles mentioning Filner's problems. It has a long and very conservative history, including naming C. Arnholdt Smith the San Diego "Man of the Century," if memory serves. Smith was up there atop the pantheon of political contributors/scoundrels alongside the likes of Charles Keating, "Bebe" Rebozo and "Kennyboy" Lay. Activist (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It's only relevant if we can find reliable sources saying it's relevant. Otherwise we're editorializing. I'd support inclusion if we can find a source or two saying that it's notable that the Chamber didn't endorse DeMaio. Champaign Supernova (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't have to "find" a source. It's right there at reference #49, which I'd restored (and for which I was castigated) after its deletion many edits ago by CFredkin. Ta Da! The U.S. Chamber of Commerce declined a request to endorse DeMaio. http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/washingtonbureau/2014/09/u-s-chamber-of-commerce-endorses-a-democrat.html U.S. Chamber of Commerce Endorses a Democrat. What's up with that?, American City Business Journals, September 13, 2014. Retrieved 14 October 2014. Activist (talk) 05:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Right now we have that the CofC "declined a request to endorse DeMaio". That's pointless. That's not the news. The news is that they endorsed his opponent, and yes, the reliable sources DO point out how unusual that is. A better source is the San Diego Union Tribune: "The chamber is known for backing Republican candidates, with endorsements of Democrats relatively rare."[6] Here's another source for how unusual it is: [7] I put the U-T source into the article in place of the bizjournal one (which was based on the U-T anyhow). I think we should restore the version that says "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which usually gives most of its endorsements to Republicans, endorsed DeMaio's general election opponent, Democrat Scott Peters, and declined a request to endorse DeMaio." --MelanieN (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Are there other examples on the project where candidates not receiving endorsements are mentioned?CFredkin (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• The race in Kansas for the U.S. seat held by Republican Pat Roberts had a Democratic candidate, Chad Taylor, and an independent, Greg Orman. You've posted 38 times to Orman's article just in the past week and have been called out by other editors who've raised questions about some of that editing. You've posted a dozen times in the last six weeks to Roberts' article, and started last May. Orman only became a viable candidate when Taylor, who had been lackadaisical in protecting victims of domestic violence in his position as D.A. of Shawnee County, was refused an endorsement by 1st Congressional District Democratic nominee Jim Sherow, back around July. So is your asking the question rhetorical? Activist (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

(From Wikipedia) On 3 September 2014, Taylor dropped out of the race, leaving independent Greg Orman. [16] The New Republic described the withdrawal of Taylor in light of the opinion of Chris Reeves, "a Kansas City Network Consultant who works with Democratic candidates" who said that “The moment Jim Sherow, a Democrat, said he couldn’t endorse him, it was over.”

Activist (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Additionally, I mentioned the David Duke gubernatorial candidacy in 1991 Louisiana runoff yesterday.

  (Also from Wikipedia) The Christian Coalition of America, which exerted considerable impact on the Republican State Central Committee, was led in Louisiana by its national director and vice president, Billy McCormack, then the pastor of University Worship Center in Shreveport. The coalition was accused of having failed to investigate Duke in the early part of his political resurgence. By the time of the 1991 gubernatorial election, however, its leadership had withdrawn support from Duke.[67] Despite Duke's status as the only Republican in the runoff, sitting Republican President George H.W. Bush opposed his candidacy and denounced him as charlatan and a racist.[66] White House Chief of Staff John Sununu stated that "The President is absolutely opposed to the kind of racist statements that have come out of David Duke now and in the past."

The Louisiana Coalition against Racism and Nazism rallied against the election of Duke as governor. Beth Rickey, a moderate member of the Louisiana Republican State Central Committee and a PhD student at Tulane University, began to follow Duke to record his speeches and expose what she saw as instances of racist and neo-Nazi remarks. Duke's success garnered national media attention. While Duke gained the backing of the quixotic former Alexandria Mayor John K. Snyder, he won few serious endorsements in Louisiana. Celebrities and organizations donated thousands to Edwards' campaign. Referencing Edwards' long-standing problem with accusations of corruption, popular bumper stickers read: "Vote for the Crook. It's Important",[73][74] and "Vote for the Lizard, not the Wizard." When a reporter asked Edwards what he needed to do to triumph over Duke, Edwards replied with a smile: "Stay alive."

Activist (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The point isn't whether WE think it's important enough to mention; the point is that Reliable Sources (several of them) thought it was important enough to report on - not as a passing mention but as an entire news story. --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This content is more relevant on the Scott Peters article, rather than this article. This non-endorsement of the subject is more relevant to the subject's political adversary than the subject themselves.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)