Talk:Larry Krasner

Mother

The phrasing that his mother was an "Evangelical pastor" seems very strange. The term "Evangelical" would not have been in common usage in her working years and few/no women were/are "pastors". The DA's website uses the term "evangelist", which I think may have been the source of this confusion/extremely lazy reporting.

I believe that the phrase should be corrected to "evangelist", in line with Krasner's own description. HenryKlay (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• District Attorney Larry Krasner.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Larry Krasner speaking.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Recurring IP editor with an ax to grind

A recurring editor (2601:87:4200:E540:ECC3:FAEB:BEFA:1A18, 2601:87:4200:E540:BDEA:2C17:3755:2769, 2601:4B:680:4CF0:194B:127F:74CB:6233, etc.) with some kind of grudge against Krasner, Kenney, etc. (really?) has been through here repeatedly. Their edits often include data that reliable sources do not directly tie to the subject. Their sources often do not support the material they add or is otherwise "questionable" at best. Synthesizing from an attack ad is pretty weak[1]. Claiming the attack ad is the Inquirer is just sad.

In any case, I've tried to discuss the issues with them in the past (somewhere... it's a bit of a pain to track down their IPs), with no obvious improvement. They're obviously mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore and think Wikipedia is their soapbox.

I've added a DS notice to their current talk page and again asked them to discuss their issues here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0, I agree. And JesseRafe appears to as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I have protected the page. Hopefully that will compel some talk page discussion by this IP. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I do think it would be reasonable to include a criticism section, as is typical on other pages. Some of those edits clearly were not of that nature but I think someone could approach it in an appropriate fashion as is often done on politician pages. 4.30.191.50 (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Impeachment

The following sentence is not clear: "In June 2022, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives voted to form the Select Committee on Restoring Law and Order largely along party lines with all but one Republican and four Democrats (three from Philadelphia) voting in favor of it." Specifically, the "along party lines" is not consistent with the remainder of the sentence. The House vote cited (#48) was definitely split: 114-86 (and most probably along party lines--but the roll call cited does not show party membership, so there is no quick/easy way to correct what seems likely to be a phrasing error.) Could someone please review the vote cited and clear up the phrasing? Should it be "all but one Republican voting in favor and all but four Democrats [...] opposed"? That would be "along party lines," at least. Thank you. 2601:404:D400:4AF0:0:0:0:4C4E (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

TBH, i'm not seeing a problem in the sentence you quote; your suggestion ~ all but one Republican voting in favor and all but four Democrats [...] opposed ~ reads with exactly the same meaning as the one you label problematic, with the exception that the actual (current) sentence gives the information that three of the Democrats were from Philly. Is it possible that you missed the word largely modifying along party lines? That would help to explain how the vote reflected party lines (i.e., not exactly, but close). Other than that, sans a little more explanation, i may be too slow to understand the issue. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 08:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. "Largely" is not the issue, and I omitted the parenthetical ("(three from Philadelphia)") only to add clarity to this talk page discussion (it can stay or go as far as I'm concerned). I suppose I could have been clearer: the issue is that the subsequent phrase "with all but one Republican and four Democrats [...] voting in favor of it" sounds like everyone except 5 members voted in favor of it, which, of course, is not the case. And, I honestly don't see another sensible way to interpret it as it is. If the "and" is not meant to join the (inverted) groups to the same action ("voting in favor of it"), then grammatically there needs to be some explanation/separation of what each of the groups did differently (hence my proposed alternative--which I admit sacrifices some brevity). I would have fixed it myself, but guaranteeing accuracy would require cross-checking each members' party affiliation in the cited vote (or using another source entirely). 2601:404:D400:4AF0:0:0:0:4C4E (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

On rereading a few times, I suppose I can see the possibility of interpreting it as "(all but one Republican) and (four Democrats) voting in favor of it"--but I think it's just as (if not more) likely to interpret it as "all but (one Republican and four Democrats) voting in favor of it." In any case, it's ambiguous/unclear. 2601:404:D400:4AF0:0:0:0:4C4E (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

On the presumption that my possible interpretation above was accurate, and in accordance with WP:BEBOLD, I've edited the page to clarify the vote. I changed it to: The vote was 114 in favor and 86 opposed, and was largely along party lines (with all but one Republican voting in favor of it, joined by four Democrats, three of whom were from Philadelphia). The parenthetical seems a bit long now, and could possibly be eliminated (is it sourced or inferred?), but I left it to avoid any appearance of bias by removing it without consensus (since the "defection" of four Democrats may be notable if one believes it's needed to contrast the implications/perceptions of a party-line vote). Alternatively, if there is a more succinct way to (unambiguously) express it, please do propose it. 2601:404:D400:4AF0:0:0:0:4C4E (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. Interesting to me to see how we, with differing backgrounds (one has to assume), read and interpret the same words differently. I still read the first sentence as unambiguously pointing at the meaning we agree it was aiming for ~ all Republicans bar one, no Democrats bar four ~ but at least now i can see your confusion; thank you for clarifying for me. I haven't looked at the article again, but the sentence you quote above does seem to be clear. And i'm not fussed about the size of the paranthetical phrase, it is both useful and clear. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 07:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Victim of Civil Rights Violation, Medical Practicioner - Gregory Smith

https://www.facebook.com/widu1600AM/videos/585508939154835/ 2603:6080:7C02:2968:7C91:A60E:F4B0:D6BE (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)