Talk:Ritchie Torres

Undo of contributions

@Gleeanon409: Hi Gleeanon, it appears as though you reverted edits of mine that both added facts to the article and removed details that were not relevant (WP:ROC, WP:OFFTOPIC) to the article. Looking at your contribution history, it appears that you may be engaged in WP:ADVOCACY. I can totally appreciate why you would want to make sure that LGBT people are receiving proper editorial treatment on Wikipedia, and I agree with your goals! However, it is important that the content included is actually relevant to the article at hand. A quote from the advocacy page, in response to your edit summary that the information is well sourced:

Wikipedia does not indiscriminately collect "true" information, but aims to synthesize such information into an accurate, proportionate representation of the state of human knowledge. Our responsibility is not just to verify material, but to contextualize and weight it appropriately. Insisting on undue prominence for a true but minor or tangential viewpoint is a canonical violation of the neutral point of view.

I will address each of your reverts here so that we can try to reach consensus:

1. Revert of "New York City Council Member for the 15th district" back to "New York City Councilmember for the 15th district."

I'm not sure why this was reverted. The New York City Council styles the term as "Council Member", not councilmember.

2. Creation of Third Party Transfer Program page and redirecting it to New York City Housing Authority

The Third Party Transfer Program is not synonymous with the NYCHA, and it does not meet the notability guidelines for its own page. If you want to add this link back, I would recommend creating a section on the NYCHA page and linking to that. I will be reverting this redirect.

3. Revert of "New York City Council member for the 15th district" back to "the councilmember for the 15th district of the New York City Council"

Again, I'm not sure why this was reverted. My edit was more succinct, with the correct "council member" styling.

4. Revert of removal of "Torres has stated that he is "intent on advancing politically," and has been floated as a future candidate for mayor of New York City.[38] His “goal is to be a national champion for the urban poor.”"

This information has nothing to do with Torres's US House of Representatives bid, especially the fact that he's been floated as a future mayoral candidate. That is why I removed it from this section.

5. Removal of absentee ballot count information

This is an additional fact about Torres's presumptive primary win and should not be removed.

6. Revert to re-include "If he wins in the primary election and then wins the general election, Torres will become the first openly gay black Congressman in U.S. history."

As I stated in my edit summary, I think this would be a great addition if Torres wins the general election. Becoming he first openly gay black Congressman (along with Mondaire Jones, so this quote should actually be amended anyway) is a remarkable achievement. However, it has not actually been achieved yet.

This relates a bit to some other edits I'm planning on making to this section of the article. There are a lot of quotes from Torres in here that make it seem like a political advertisement. It does not read like an encyclopedia entry on a politician's US House race. I will be removing many of these irrelevant quotes and replacing them with facts about the race with relation to Torres. For instance, I think Torres running as an openly gay candidate vs. Diaz Sr. is super relevant, but should be written like an encyclopedia instead of a collection of quotes (see WP:QUOTEFARM).

Since your edit reverts my edits that improve the facts and grammar of the article, I will be reverting it. If you would like to discuss this, I'm extremely open to trying to reach consensus with you, because as I said, I agree with your goals. Thank you! Brooklynpedestrian (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

First off I’ve added numbers to follow all this. Secondly don’t simply revert per WP:BRD; you were Bold, were Reverted, now we’re Discussing.

I couldn’t separate all your good edits from not-so-good so they all were deleted. I’ll respond more fully in a moment. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for adding numbers, and thank you for pointing me to WP:BRD. However, I don't understand "I couldn’t separate all your good edits from not-so-good so they all were deleted." Each of my edits was a separate, atomic edit. They were not batched, and you easily could have reverted each one as necessary. If you agree with some of them, could you please revert your edit, revert only my edits that you disagree with, and then we can discuss those? Thank you. Brooklynpedestrian (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

No, the edits are easily found in the history, you can copy/paste the needed edits.

Ok, the easy ones, 1,3, and 5, are all fine, my bad for the faulty link, etc.

For 2, I’ve fixed the redirect, thank you for the heads up.

For 4, moving it is fine, deleting is not, which is trus for almost everything as it’s all well sourced and been gone over a few times. We write for the readers and something obvious to you and I certainly can be surprising to someone else.

For 6, no, this well documented and part of why he has attracted extra attention, we would report this even if he loses as a point of history.

Those quotes are often the most NPOV way to get accurate information across, we have to avoid Wikipedia saying someone is a homophobe, for instance, but we can attribute someone else saying it. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)