Jump to content

Talk:Jane Corwin

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

Nanny problem?

[edit]

Does Jane Corwin have an "nanny problem", i.e. did she employ an undocumented alien as a nanny? It seems unlikely, based on the sources I've found from a quick look. The source of the rumor appears to be a radio host who raised a "hypothetical" about an unnamed candidate on his facebook page:

Speculation about a House candidate’s possible use of an illegal alien as a nanny broke into the open Friday when Tom Bauerle, a morning talk show host on WBEN Radio, posted a question on his Facebook page. “Just for the sake of discussion, if a congressional candidate hired illegal nannies from Central America . . .,” he wrote Friday morning, without mentioning Corwin. Tim Wenger, program director for WBEN, said Monday that he did not know what, if anything, was said about the subject on the radio. (source: 8 March 2011, BuffaloNews.com )

In the same article, BuffaloNews.com goes on to report that Corwin's accountant wrote to her husband, Phillip Corwin, as follows:

“Based on our experience working together and the information provided regularly to us in the course of business, I can confirm that you have fully complied with all federal and state laws and applicable regulations, including your payments for domestic assistance.”

So evidently the couple did employ domestic help of some sort, but their accountant of 21 years appears to be saying they did so entirely within the law, to the best of his knowledge. That's not definitive, of course, since his opinion would be based just on what he was told... but his statement also seems to imply that they paid taxes for at least the domestic helpers he was aware of, and that he wasn't aware of any other such helpers being employed, no "under the table" workers, to the best of his knowledge. Corwin herself calls the rumor a "100% lie", and the story goes on to say that she planned to refuse to...

...respond to further questions about documenting Social Security taxes paid on behalf of domestic help or whether she would release her tax returns. Her spokesman said, "The letter from their accountant speaks for itself."

One of Corwin's putative opponents in the race, Jack Davis, criticized that refusal to release tax returns ( to prove she paid applicable employment taxes, as I presume ) saying a getting letter from her accountant was "like getting a note from your mommy".

I found a couple of other sources that touch on this, but the only significant one was a New York Daily News (official) blog of 8, March 2011, that follows on after the BuffaloNews.com story I've summarized above, and that also links to the full text of the accountants letter.

I've already reverted SPA Janesnanny (talk · contribs) to Collect's version of 14:08, 17 March 2011, and based on what I've documented here I'm going to go ahead and delete the "nanny" allegations he rightly commented out in that version, as well. It's possible further news could develop on this, of course, but with what seems to be available at the present, based on my brief search, there's absolutely no way any of this belongs in our article.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a close friend of the family I can confirm she's never had a nanny so this is clearly someone starting rumors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.191.229 (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"But" used as argumentative statement

[edit]

If it is in the cite - then quote it, ascribing the opion directly to the person holding that opinion. It should not be used otherwise. WP:WTA: Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proven should be clearly attributed. And the "but" is most certainly an opinion. Just give the full quote, attributed to the person making it as an opinion. Simple. Collect (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent literally hours dealing with similar objections you've made in the past to perfectly straightforward statements from reliable sources. I've learned it's not productive to debate such with you, and I've asked for opinions at NPOV/N.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. The "but" is an opinion. Opinions must be sourced as opinions. that you seem to have a personal dispute does not affect me one iota - I havenone with you. Collect (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the convenience of other editors who might like to weigh in, here's a link to the NPOV/N thread entitled "Argumentative?" that I started about this. I'll try to remember to update this to a "permalink" when the thread rolls off to archives there. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there actually any reason not to attribute an opinion to the person evincing the opinion? Collect (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Bellavia likely Tea Party candidate, say two sources

[edit]

The first two sources listed below are already in the article but, as I write this, the third one isn't:

The first source says David Bellavia will probably run as a third-party candidate, and it's used currently in our article to support that assertion. The first source also (very) vaguely hints that the Tea Party might get behind him as a third-party candidate.

The second and third sources make it all but explicit that he'll be the Tea Party's pick. WP:CRYSTAL notwithstanding, that should probably be added to the article (which now only says Bellavia will likely be a third-party candidate, rather than the Tea Party one), along with the third source. I don't have time to do it now. If those sources aren't in Bellavia's article, I suppose some motivated editor could add them there, too. If anyone makes the addition, or adds the sources to the the Bellavia article, I'm sure a note below to say as much would be appreciated by all.  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've now added that third source listed above to the article, in this edit.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal ball time. Collect (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. Did you have some objection, or is that merely an observation?  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent edits by opponents who favor Tea Party

[edit]

When I review the edit history for this article, it looks pretty obvious that besides the apparently erroneous "Nanny problem" content and other uncited accusations that have now been removed, much of the (cited) negative material that's currently in the article appears to have been added by editors loyal to the local New York Tea Party, or to its putative candidate, David Bellavia.

I have no conflict of interest in this myself, but I think this does raise some genuine concerns that can probably best be addressed by the addition of sourced content that's not uniformly critical of Corwin. Since the article is so short, as I write this, a considerable percentage of it reads like a "Criticism by Tea Party" section. Since the negative content is informative and well-cited, that content should not be removed, imo, but it definitely needs to be brought to due weight overall in the article by the addition of other, more neutral content from reliable sources about Corwin.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Jane Corwin. 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) 01:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jane Corwin. 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) 23:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jane_Corwin&oldid=1256150436"