Jump to content

Talk:Mark Green (New York politician)

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

Untitled

[edit]

I just fleshed this out. Here are the sources of my quotes and analysis:

peter noel quote: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0142,noel,29155,5.html racial profiling: http://www.gothamgazette.com/searchlight2001/green_transcript.html racism and green's loss: http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/columns/citypolitic/n_9064/ 9/11 and green's loss: http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1328844

Aroundthewayboy 20:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

[edit]

This article reads like a campaign flyer for Mr. Green and certainly doesn't fit the NPOV guidelines. | Keithlaw 21:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I rewrote the article to try to make it more NPOV. I'd love to hear any comments before I remove the {{npov}} tag. | Keithlaw 02:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some supposedly POV material is merely overly precious. It would be nice to have the timeline re-written as prose and incorporated into the article. For the once New York City mayoral candidate on the Democratic ticket, it is an surprisingly short article. -Acjelen 22:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to know what Green, born in 1945 and of prime draft age for the Vietnam War, did about conscription given his lifelong interest in public affairs and public service. The article doesn't provide that context, but for anybody born in 1945 there were 3 crucial issues in the 1960s: 1) Vietnam 2) Vietnam and 3) Vietnam. Most people who edit Wikipedia are too young to know what role the war played and how it saturated that decades, so the omission is understandable in that sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • That was easy enough. Any more suggestions? | Keithlaw 23:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nice job! TMS63112 19:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks! I removed the {{npov}} tag. Keithlaw 21:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • The use of the quote by Peter Noel is extremely unfair. Since Green won a big majority of the black vote in the general election and was regarded as the anti-Giuliani by nearly all observers, to highlight this quote by a black nationalist (who was shortly thereafter fired by the Voice) is, well, grotesque. Please reconsider. Klf1987 (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • "based on his knowledge of the fact coupled with an infamous statement to Ferrer supporters that he did not need them to get elected" is very wrong in two respects: first, Green had no knowledge "of the fact" at the time and now, six years later, no one believes that he had knowledge of the fact: second, Green never told a meeting of minority Democratic leaders he didn't want their support (no one is that stupid) but after four hours of meetings post-primary pleading for their support in the general election, he said that the issue wasn't so much that he needed them to win but needed them to govern... be a part of his administration. Context counts. Klf1987 (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the unsubstantiated assertions referred to in your second comment. As to the Noel quotation, it's certainly a fact that, rightly or wrongly, the incident alienated some minority voters. The quotation is an example of that sentiment. There's probably better support that could be found, but until we have a good substitute, I'm reluctant to remove this citation. JamesMLane t c 19:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anon IP's repeated edits

[edit]

An anon has repeatedly edited this article, without responding to my edit summary comments or to a message on his or her then-current talk page. The anon has now commented on the edits but has done so on User talk:Gamaliel, although both Gamaliel and I have pointed to this page as the appropriate place.

I am cobbling together a thread here by compiling comments from elsewhere.

From one of my edit summaries: Green is "conservative" only from a radical's POV; some of the stuff about AAR might be salvageable but it needs sourcing. JamesMLane t c

From my comment on the user talk page: In reverting one of your earlier edits, I wrote this edit summary: "Green is 'conservative' only from a radical's POV; some of the stuff about AAR might be salvageable but it needs sourcing; PLEASE go to Talk:Mark J. Green." The first point is, I think, obvious. "Conservative" doesn't mean "anyone to the right of Noam Chomsky". As for AAR, how much weight to be given in Green's bio to one particular criticism of him is something that can be discussed, but the criticism doesn't even make it to the starting gate unless it's cited to a reliable source. JamesMLane t c

From the anon's comment on Gamaliel's talk page:
it isn't irrelevant in the context of the "controversy" section of the article. you deleted it from everywhere the first time around. i will not put it anywhere else if you leave it in the controversy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.63.2 (talk • contribs)
My reply (new material):
I didn't say it was irrelevant. I said that there was no basis for calling Green a conservative, and you've still provided none. With regard to AAR, you need to cite a source. That doesn't mean your assertion that Robert Kennedy said it. It means providing a specific citation to a published source (online or dead-tree publication) that meets the criteria of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. Specifics of citation are explained at Wikipedia:Citing sources. There would still be an issue about whether to include it, because an encyclopedia article is a summary and can't recount every criticism that's been lodged against a public figure in the course of his or her career. We can't even begin to exercise judgment about a particular item, however, until we see the item properly sourced. You should also note that this article is subject to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. That policy states in part: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[1] talk pages, user pages, and project space." (emphasis in original) JamesMLane t c 16:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum and semi-correction. An anon has edited Mark J. Green under different IP addresses. The comment I quoted above was from a note by an anon in User talk:Gamaliel#Mark J. Green entry but I see now that it may have been a different anon who put a comment in the wrong section. Anyway, even if that's the case, what I said above about Wikipedia guidelines and policies is still correct. And I wish all these anons would register accounts. JamesMLane t c 16:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006 and May 19, 2006

Lane's edit vandalism

[edit]

Welcome to this area of the page, Mr. Lane. Thanks for being so kind as to post here before deleting others' accurate, relevant and sourced edits. Seems as though you've added quite a bit since whining to the administrators, insinuating that others "refused" to discuss information, no? Lets get back to the subject of HONESTY in posting, shall we? You are well aware that there exists a great deal of controversy over Green's managerial decisions at AAR. If you are not aware of this, I would suggest that you please be courteous enough to excuse yourself from posting in this section of the page, as you would certainly be unfamiliar with the topic matter you were presuming to edit others' content on. And certainly that wouldn't be an honest practice, would it? I think there can be "concensus" in this discussion area on that point.

If you are posting in this AAR section of the entry, you should be aware that (as stated in the edit) both Al Franken (original Air America host and most high-profile builder of the network to date) and Bobby Kennedy, Jr. (son of U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, and current high-profile Air America host) harshly denounced decisions made by Green, which have made Green TREMENDOUSLY unpopular with Air America listeners. As you are certainly aware (having, presumably, read it) my edit stated not that his stewardship was, "poor". It stated not that his stewardship was "dubious". Rather is clearly state that his stewardship was "controversial", for reasons stated in the edit. This is incontestable. Yet you troll the site to wipe it off? This is simply unacceptable.

It would appear that you are the self-appointed custodian of this page. You should know that--your feelings of love and devotion for Mark Green aside--you are incorrectly using the future tense in your upkeep of this (AAR) section.

Finally I will kindly ask you to please refrain from editing any of my content in this section of the page. I warn that if you do, you WILL be reported to Wikipedia staff for vandalism. This is open discussion, and you may not hide behind the skirts of Wikipedia arcana to bully others out of contributing to your clearly biased love-letter to Green in this area.

---

Final general thought, it's certainly fortunate that Adolf Hitler is no longer a "living person", for Wikipedia purposes, isn't it? One shudders to think what the Mr. Lanes might insist upon in his entry ("No controversial POV assertions about allegations of improper treatment Jews, gays and Roma please! And the term 'invade' is unacceptably charged. After all: 'No info is better than 'controversial' info'".) This standard, when carried to Lane's extreme is clearly ridiculous and unacceptable. This standard, when carried to such extreme renders Wikipedia entries irrelevant. I would like to establish a consensus here for the purpose of making this article MORE relevant and informative, rather than irrelevant: AAR is Green's current business endeavor and therefore is arguably how most people now will appreciate his relevance and want to seek out his entry, and yet this section is, right now, being prevented from being flushed out by this single user, Lane. I'm not suggesting that he or anyone else can't add on. I'm not suggesting that erroneous information cannot be corrected. On the contrary: I'm suggesting that RELEVANT, ACCURATE CONTENT POSTED BY OTHERS NEEDS TO BE LEFT ALONE. This is the policy I have followed, out of respect for the work of others who may know more about certain portions of the entry than me. I would ask for the same respect on portions that are clearly indisputable. I again ask all to PLEASE ONLY EDIT THE CONTENT OF SECTIONS WHERE YOU HAVE REAL FAMILIARITY WITH THE TOPIC AND CONTENT.

Thanks, all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.69.38 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 25 June 2007

The position you impute to me, that controversial material should be excluded, is of course not one that I actually hold. (In fact, your hypothetical example of an objection to the term "invade" is, unfortunately, realistic. Some of the right-wingers here fought against using the term "invasion" to describe the invasion of Iraq. I was one of those arguing in favor of using that term.)
The position you set up as an alternative -- that relevant, accurate content should be left alone -- is also not the Wikipedia standard. A statement can be relevant and accurate and yet inappropriate for any of several reasons, one of the main ones being that it's not properly sourced. As I explained above, "sourced" doesn't mean your personal assertion that Robert Kennedy said something. It means that the comment is cited to a verifiable, published source. If Joe Unknown Blogger says that he heard Kennedy say this at dinner last night, that's no good. If Kennedy was quoted in a reliable source (such as a printed newspaper or an established online source like Salon), then that's an acceptable citation to make the comment worth being considered for inclusion. Just include the source and you'll be past this step. In a fraction of the time you've spent writing these lengthy diatribes against me, you could have done a little research work and satisfied the requirement for sourcing.
Finally, let me give you a couple pointers about talk page formatting. We don't use horizontal divider bars on talk pages. Instead, if you're responding to a previous comment in the thread, precede each paragraph of your comment by colons -- one colon more than the comment you're answering. This creates successive indentation that makes it easier to see the relationship of the comments. Also, please sign your talk page posts by typing four tildes at the end: ~~~~. This automatically signs your comment (with your user name, if you've chosen one, or with your IP address otherwise) and date-stamps it. These conventions have been developed because they make the discussons more comprehensible. JamesMLane t c 22:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State and City campaign tickets

[edit]

What's the value of listing all candidates on slates he's been part of? It appears only very marginally relevant, and repeats some material already in the article. Cloonmore (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark J. Green. 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) 09:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark J. Green. 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) 07:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Green_(New_York_politician)&oldid=1207429383"