Jump to content

Talk:George Demos

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

IP edits

[edit]

I'm reverting some IP edits, but want to explain why here first. One set of IP deletions were made because: "no other candidate's page mentions how many times they have run for office." Under wp:otherstuffexists, that does not matter. If it is appropriate, as it was reported by a reliable source, it is appropriate to reflect it. That is the case here. The IP also says "Neither Altschuler's nor Cox's page makes any mention of their opponents. There is no reason Demos' page should make mention of his opponents." The answer is the same. I would also point out that the edit history of this IP and the other who has made deletions suggest the possibility of a COI.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate; Conflict of Interest?

[edit]

In the wake of the two IPs, an SPA acct has just been created and added the subject's birthdate. Does he or anyone else have RS support for that? I had not seen it. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was me. I was trying to make the box and just used my birthday as a place holder. I removed it myself..I forgot to log in before doing it though. Sorry about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdavi410 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand -- you put your own birthday into a wikipedia article, as the birthday of Demos? Why would you do that? Are you Demos? If not, why would you put incorrect information into the article? If that is the birthdate of Demos, how did you know it?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catsmatidis

[edit]

What do the editors think about removing the section about Catsmatidis talking about ethical issues at the SEC? Demos was cleared of the complaint. I'm not sure every little smear offered by an opponent's campaign deserves mention.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.195.56 (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was reported by an RS, and thus appears relevant.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sdavi410 comment

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Relevance_of_content I don't see how which political consultant a particular candidate used fits into the above link and the outline of relevancy on wikipedia. Not that this is a sole determinant, but remember, naming individual political consultants rarely makes it into the wiki's of other pols. I don't necessarily mind it being in, but I think it takes away from the rest of the article. I would also like to inquire about removing the language about SEC allegations. I think it fits into the definition of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories . No RS mentioned the allegation. One RS (a blog hosted by Politico) mentioned that someone mentioned the allegation. The article does not, in any way, allege any wrongdoing. Plenty of RS’s cover the Birthers, but it doesn’t get mentioned on Wiki because it’s a –lunatic- fringe theory. The subject has been covered by the Wall Street Journal, Newsday and New York Times, none of which ever mentioned the SEC allegations.

Sdavi410 (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(moving from my tp).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a special issue for you? As to relevance and notability, we look to coverage. If the media covered it, it is notable. If it did not, it is not. Is there some particular reason that this is causing you discomfort? Are you in the pr or consulting business? Also, fringe theories are a completely different thing -- more along the lines of Martians landing. The SEC allegations are verifiable. Politico is an RS. Perhaps the other media would have covered the allegations if they had been reflected here earlier -- there was not wp article, I believe, until I created one (other than one that was deleted and seemed to suffer from COI). We don't censor.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Relevance_of_content I don't see how which political consultant a particular candidate used fits into the above link and the outline of relevancy on wikipedia. Not that this is a sole determinant, but remember, naming individual political consultants rarely makes it into the wiki's of other pols. I don't necessarily mind it being in, but I think it takes away from the rest of the article. I would also like to inquire about removing the language about SEC allegations. I think it fits into the definition of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories . No RS mentioned the allegation. One RS (a blog hosted by Politico) mentioned that someone mentioned the allegation. The article does not, in any way, allege any wrongdoing. Plenty of RS’s cover the Birthers, but it doesn’t get mentioned on Wiki because it’s a –lunatic- fringe theory. The subject has been covered by the Wall Street Journal, Newsday and New York Times, none of which ever mentioned the SEC allegations.

Sdavi410 (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sdavi410 (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(moving from my tp).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already responded to above.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whistleblower section

[edit]

The "whistleblower" section does not cite any Reliable Source. I'm going to take it down until somebody can provide a reliable source for this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdavi410 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project On Government Oversight, for starters, appears to be an RS.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A user named Amigao keeps reinserting potentially libelous material. the user cites personal blogs as a source. These blogs do not meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources. Can an editor please make sure this material does not go back in unless properly cited in a Reliable Source? Thanks sdavi410 —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

References to judicial records concerning an ongoing investigation ([1]) and a March 2009 report by the SEC Inspector General ([2]) are considered reliable sources and reporting them does not constitute libel. Please be civil and work to improve the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amigao (talk • contribs) 23:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point us to where the SEC report mentions Demos?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Amigao is a political hack engaged in a liberous campaign posting made up allegations from unverifiable blogs that do not site to news sources. "judicial records" cited do not reference "George Demos." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brookster22 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)— Brookster22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Suggest you keep to the issue at hand, and not engage in personal attacks by calling your fellow editor "a political hack".--Epeefleche (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called judicial records don't cite George Demos. The conspiracy-laden websites that cite George Demos do not fit Wikipedia's policy for Reliable Sources, not by a long shot. Truth be told, not a single Reliable Source mentions these allegations. Secondly, judicial records, even if they do cite the subject, which they don't, are not wikipedia material. That's called Original Research. Posting original research violates Wikipedia policies. Sdavi410 (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Demos is, in fact, mentioned by name in judicial records. A letter from the Grievance Committee of the Tenth Judicial District of New York, dated May 11, 2010, (File No. S-388-10) was addressed to "George G. Demos" by name, as you can see here.[3] The same investigation (File No. S-388-10) was later re-opened and transferred to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division on June 1, 2011, as you can see here.[4]
Also, legal cases are perfectly able to be cited in Wikipedia. Please see Template:Cite court to see how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amigao (talk • contribs) 16:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Demos is not mentioned in SEC IG report. Letter on different matter. "POGO" is a guy with a website - not a newsource.
Amigao keeps citing judicial records, which are original research. According to wikipedia policies, original research can only be used if they have been reported in other reliable sources. These records have not been reported in reliable sources, and therefore are not wikipedia material. Sdavi410 (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Records such as court records must be used with care, but they do not necessarily constitute OR (though at times they may). I am, at the same time, curious as to where there is a nexus between the SEC report and the text that it supports in the article.
@Amigao -- can you please clarify that point?
@Sdavi410 and Brookster22 -- can you please clarify that you are not accounts run by the same person, or "meatpuppets"? As you know, there is now a sockpuppetry case afoot exploring that very issue here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sdavi410.
I would also caution all warring editors against violating the 3RR rule, and note that if two editors are controlled by the same person that this would apply to their aggregate edits.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the same person as brookster, just for the record. It appears we both feel, quite rightly, that wikipedia is not the place for original research. But the other editor in question doesn't know how to sign their posts. Its not me.Sdavi410 (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
? I am not sdavi410, but they are correct that wikipedia is not place for conjecture and inuendo on biographies of living people, especially in the political arena where people have motive to libel others. -bookster22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brookster22 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Brookster22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

The March 2009 SEC Inspector General report and the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division's investigation both refer to the same underlying issue. George Demos wrote a signed letter, dated October 22, 2009, to the Disciplinary Committee of the Appellate Division in order to address the issue of the whistleblower exposure.[5] In it, he referenced the report by the SEC Inspector General.

Note that Demos has not been reprimanded or disciplined in any official capacity. He is simply under investigation for an alleged violation of professional ethics rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amigao (talk • contribs) 01:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demos is not "under investigation" - the bogus matter was already dismissed.

  • It strikes me that at minimum Project On Government Oversight is an RS. I would suggest that Sdavi/Brookster therefore at minimum stop deleting that, and the text it supports. Between the two of you, you have deleted this quite a number of times today, without adequate explanation as to why it is not an RS. That is edit warring, and a deprecated practice.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree about this group being an RS. But solely for the sake of argument, lets puts that aside. This information is poorly sourced. Not a single other source mentions these allegations. According to wikipedia policies, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be inserted and if present, must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous."

At a minimum, this should be backed up with other RSs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdavi410 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you disagree that it is an RS? If it is an RS, it is ipso facto not "poorly sourced". It is sourced to an RS. That is not poorly sourced -- it is well-sourced. And it is against wp policy -- and blockable behavior -- to repeatedly edit war the deletion of RS-sourced relevant text.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it is an RS for the reasons the user below stated. That said, even giving the group the benefit of the doubt, I still believe the paragraph in question fails to meet sourcing guidelines. Wikipedia states very clearly that "contentious information" that is "poorly sourced" must be removed immediately, especially when its about a living person. And again, it relies heavily on original research, which wikipedia prohibits. Sdavi410 (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reputable advocacy organizations such as POGO are certainly RSs, though I would suggest good form would be to attribute statements in POGO to them in the text. And material sourced to RSs is not "poorly sourced" -- it is material that is not so-sourced that is poorly sourced.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[text by IP 68.174.188.179 entered, and then deleted by the IP]

Hi -- are you Sdavi and/or Brookster?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not me. Sdavi410 (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note my above question was directed at SPA IP 68.174.188.179, who had posted a comment. Shortly after I posted my question, that IP deleted his comment (without answering my query). You can find a record of his edits here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And that, without responding to my above questions, Brookster then deleted the above square-bracketed material regarding the text being added by the IP, and then deleted by the IP.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False information not citing reputable news source. Falsely claims investigation reopened. Letter does not say that - investigation may involve a different matter. SEC IG report linked does NOT mention subjects name. Hundreds of reporters from REAL newsources have covered this subject and NONE have given credence to them because they have facts. Citing conspiracy laden blogs is not a reputable source. Brookster22 —Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

That may well be correct.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear to be a one-person blog, which is generally a bad sign. But Doyle appeared at first blush to fall into the exception to the general rule. "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." But then there is an exception to that exception -- for BLPs -- so unless Doyle is picked up by another publication on this specific issue, I would not use Sense on Cents. He does appear to be widely quoted, including by the WSJ, and writes for Fortune -- see from just this past month here. Even more, if you look at news archives, etc. But that is not enough if the material appears only in his self-published blog.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • POGO is an RS. And primary sources can be reliable and useful, though they must be used with caution in order to avoid OR. Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. See WP:PRIMARY--Epeefleche (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we are deferring to Rob's judgment, then the section ought to be removed. The source in question is not a "major WP:RS publication", not by a long shot. Sdavi410 (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it, based on the discussion here and the discussion I pointed to here of POGO as an RS, and Rob is in agreement with the addition I've made as a first step.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest leaving the material out until someone has time to re-write it along the lines Rob puts forward. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest editing the material to delete anything dependent on Doyle, even though he appears to be an expert in the field, per the above. But the primary source legal docs are certainly fine as a source for material under the relevant indicated wp guideline, as long as they meet the above-indicated wp strictures.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a first step along these lines, adding one sentence to the article citing to POGO, per the discussion on this page and the POGO discussion pointed to, and Rob has indicated his concurrence with that approach.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Brookster has been blocked for edit-warring on this article, with regard to this issue which we are seeking to discuss on the talk page. I would hope that this will encourage more productive discussion to resolve these issues.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that George Demos' own campaign website references the May 11, 2010 letter (File No. S-388-10) by the Grievance Committee of the Tenth Judicial District, as you can see at the bottom of the page here.[6] This letter has been picked up and hosted by Politico.com, a reputable news source. It is precisely this investigation into whistleblower exposure (File No. S-388-10) that was re-opened on June 1, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amigao (talk • contribs) 23:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to think that Demos' own campaign website, and what it directly references, are appropriate sources for this purpose.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure politicians' websites say all manner of things. Was the material covered by any serious secondary source? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. We accept such material in websites of the person/entity in question, as to the person/entity in question, whether or not they are covered in any secondary sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't. We consider whether the material has had coverage in secondary sources. Is there a particular reason you want to include this material when it has not? It seems undue weight, to me. But perhaps you have specific reasons you want to see it in the article? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense is the project on open government a "major WP:RS publication"? Please note the project on open government has been cited a total of 19 times on all of WP, an exceedingly small number. Rob asked if it's not a "major WP:RS publication...then why are we reporting it?" Can someone please detail how Project on Open Government is a "MAJOR [usually reserved for Nytimes, wash post, etc] Reliable Source"? Sdavi410 (talk) 03:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of confidential letter

[edit]

I've deleted a just-added letter from the article. There is nothing to indicate that it relates to George Demos. Furthermore, on its face it indicates that it is confidential.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This whole section is based on "confidential" information. Why does "confidential" information that harms the subject meet your standards - but similar information showing the subject did no wrong does not meet those same standards? I suggest we bring in other editors for a ruling. Sdavi410 (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion here.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Criticism

[edit]

I'm restoring an edit outlining Republican party criticism of Demos' 2012 campaign. The Editor who made the deletion had no argument with the accuracy of the citation or the quotes within. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhoge123 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is true doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. I could say that I think Demos is a member of an alien race of lizard people. Saying that I made that claim would be true, but including it in Demos' bio would certainly not be appropriate. The content you're referring to is basically an Altschuler press release, and I'm removing it again. Arbor8 (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There Is nothing fanciful in that quote. Demos is running for public office and seeking the Republican nomination. That he was criticized by the GOP leader in his home town (Brookhaven, the largest town in his district) is entirely relevant. I haven't seen anything to indicate that Garcia was misquoted. An accurate, relevant quote should be part of the public record.
I am reposting the following addition to this talk page from another user - and removing the text in question. The text in question references no RS - and is not encyclopedic, to steal a phrase. "Just because something is true doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. I could say that I think Demos is a member of an alien race of lizard people. Saying that I made that claim would be true, but including it in Demos' bio would certainly not be appropriate. The content you're referring to is basically an Altschuler press release, and I'm removing it again. Arbor8 (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)" Sdavi410 (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Park51

[edit]

It was still being referred to as the Cordoba House and incorrectly labeled primarily as a mosque. That has been corrected. Shabeki (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on George Demos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Offline 14:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Demos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on George Demos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Demos&oldid=1216195841"