Talk:Rubén Díaz Jr.

Notes to GeneralBelly

Ruben Diaz Jr.

Hey there! Good job adding references to the above article. Since they are offline and not cited in the article, could you place them as inline references, for example[1]?

References

^ example Cheers, GeneralBelly (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, General Belly

Dear General,

Okay. Thanks for your editorial help on this one.

I was in the process of adding the references, when you first encountered the article.

I did it right away, and am continuing right after we talk here.

I will place the refernces in-line - though that will take me a little longer, because I never did it before -- please be patient and thanks!

Sincerely, MBernal615 (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers - you're doing a great job! Let me know if you need help formatting, etc. GeneralBelly (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear General,

I just saw the Weasel Word tag again.

In addition to completing the piece (photos, etc.) I am still adding even More Documentation.

I've added 18 references to the piece, and I will add the on-line annotations this weekend.

The link to the New York State Assembly Website (also supplied in the article) provides complete access to every piece of legislation sponsored by the Assemblyman...the entirety of every bill.

I will also add specific Legislative Bill numbers to each piece of legislation cited.

Is there any area(s) that you wish to see Particularly Annotated?

Please let me know, and I will do it.

In the meantime, I will remove the Weasel Word tag and go to sleep (I work in 4 hours).

If you re-instate the tag (as is your complete right) I will be in a three-revert situation, even though I am documenting this article with great care and appreciation for your comments.

Will you allow me to work on this throughout the weekend, without the Weasel tag?

I will do it responsibly and thoroughly, as I have been doing.

I would really appreciate it.

Thank you in either case.

Sincerely, MBernal615 (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MBernal615 (talk • contribs)

From GeneralBelly

Hi MBernal615. The weasel tag has nothing to do with photos/documentation/references, but rather concerns style and wording. Examples of problems include:

"...and is widely recognized as a model for citizen advocacy and service delivery"

"Due to these efforts, and his deep personal commitment, Diaz became known internationally as a man dedicated to civil and human rights."

"In dramatic Bronx fashion..."

"Diaz is now considered a leading candidate for the position of Bronx Borough President."

The above examples read like tabloid fawning and speculation rather than part of a fact-based, referenced Wikipedia article. While I realise that you are editing in good faith, it is poor etiquette and makes no sense to remove a tag when you have not addressed the problem that caused it to be added. I'm replacing the tag because it is appropriate and necessary and it should only be removed after discussion and consensus on the article's Talkpage. There is no reason why you cannot continue to work on the article while the weasel tag is in place and the weasel words can be edited out by whomever gets around to it. Good luck with your edits. GeneralBelly (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ruben Diaz Jr talkpage I'd question the appropriateness and usefulness of cutting and pasting our conversations onto the article's talkpage - what would future editors gain from the discussion? At the very least I'd suggest you remove the first part about referencing. GeneralBelly (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...Issues will be addressed

Dear General,

Thank you for specifying your instances of weasel words.

They will all be addressed...annotated, substantiated and/or modified where necessary and appropriate.

Your specific enumeration of these was helpful, since it now allows for direct editorial action on them.

As I indicated, I will perform these over the weekend, in addition to an overall and continuing review of the article.

I am sorry you did not remove the Tag you placed again, but that will be addressed and resolved in due time.

I am confident that this article will not present the issues and editorial history of Ruben Diaz, Sr.

Thank you again for providing specifics.

Sincerely, MBernal615 (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

MBernal615 (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Equal... I have one question (about footnotes)

Dear Equal,

I appreciate the editing you did on the Ruben Diaz article.

I can see you spent some real time with it!

Thank you very much for your time and your help.

I have one question about the footnotes...they no longer appear in numerical order.

In the introduction the footnote numbers start as usual: 1,2,3

In the "Early Life" section the footnote numbers, instead of continuing with the number 4, start back at 1,1

In "Advocacy and Legislation the numbers show as 1,4,5,6,7,8,9

In the last three sections, the footnote numbers now appear as 60,1,61

The problem - which you were correcting - is that the Ruben Diaz biography (from the New York State Assembly Directory) is cited several times in this article.

You worked hard at correcting it...I can see from your entries!

I appreciate this work, but please consider this: since we can't have it both ways (multiple citation and numerical order)...then from the reader's point of view, wouldn't it be a cleaner read, if the footnotes appeared in numerical order?

I left the footnotes the way you placed them, since this can be easily addressed at any time. If you have a moment, please let me know what you think about this.

Finally regarding the "citation needed," you're absolutely right!

I had to get some sleep, and am now back...adding more in-line references.

Thank you for your help, Equal!

All best,

MBernal615 (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

68.173.125.102 (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, Equal

Dear Equal,

I received your note re citations.

Thanks for the extra information.

I'll follow your lead, and continue as you suggested.

I appreciate the time you took on this!

All best,

MBernal615 (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

GeneralBelly...please review the Ruben Diaz Jr. article (Thank you)

Dear General,

I documented the Ruben Diaz Jr. article with complete in-line references.

I also reviewed the language, for any ambiguity or bias.

Please review the article in its current form.

If it meets your standards, I ask (with utmost respect) that you remove the Weasel Tag which you placed.

If there is still any area of concern, please let me know and I will work hard to resolve it.

Thank you for your time and attention to the Ruben Diaz Jr. article.

Without editors and fact-checking, a lot of writing does not become as rigorous as it should be!

Thanks again,

MBernal615 (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted material and press releases

While much has been done to add sources and clean up the weasel words, there are 2 significant issues remaining: copyrighted material and the use of press releases as sources. Copying and pasting information, even from a public or government source, is not permissible unless there is explicit permission from the author, usually in the form of a Creative Commons licence, or similar. Press releases are not good sources for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the problem of self-publication (and therefore bias). While they may be 100% correct and objective, it is still preferable to find verifiable and reliable 3rd party sources. On another note, many of the references which are not hyperlinked are available online - I will add some when I get a chance. Best, GeneralBelly (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, GeneralBelly

Dear General,

Thank you for removing the Weasel Tag.

I understand your point about press releases, and I agree with you. However, the State Assembly materials used in the Diaz Jr. article were not press releases. They were 1) legislative bill summaries and 2) State Assembly Newsletters. A press release is sent by anyone to the press, in hopes of getting press. A New York State Assembly Newsletter is generated, edited, and mailed by the State of New York. It undergoes a strict editorial and fact-checking protocol because it is promulgated by, and bears the authority and responsibility, of a government-issued publication.

I am not writing this to be argumentative, but merely to contextualize the usefulness of a government newsletter, as compared to a mere press release.

Regarding copying and pasting: I cited the Assemblyman's legislation in key areas with my own language, then provided footnote citations to that legislation. I don't see where this constitutes copying and pasting, but perhaps I missed something.

General, thank you for helping with the hyperlinks. I worked hard on the footnotes and references, but could not get the hyperlinks to work. I will devote some time to learning this process...but as with the in-line footnotes, it will take me a little time.

Thank you again for your interest and assistance with this article.

MBernal615 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Diazphoto-3 .jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Diazphoto-3 .jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Lincolnite (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no duplication

Dear Lincolnite,

You notified me today, of a pending deletion of photos in the Ruben Diaz Jr. article.

I understand the issue you presented. However that issue was addressed in my message to GeneralBelly, earlier today and prior to your own notification to me.

The "duplication" you refer to, is of a photo of Ruben Diaz Jr. for which Diaz owns the copyright.

Diaz did not duplicate anything. The source itself, is Diaz's own photo for which he owns the copyright.

Did you have a chance to see that message to GeneralBelly?

Here it is below, in its entirety.

I received identical notices for three other photos in the same article...please advise, so that I may resolve this.

Thank you,

MBernal615 (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Dear General:

I am coordinating with the office of Assemblyman Ruben Diaz Jr. and the Assembly Office of Communication and Information. Photos were uploaded and licenses obtained, in conformity with the copyright information that pertains to each photo.

It's certainly not incumbent upon you to know this, so it's understandable if you didn't: newsletter photos are taken by the individual legislators. They take their own photos; they own the copyright to their own photos.

They provide these photos to the Office of Communication and Information (retaining their personal copyright), and allow the OCI to publish them in their Assembly Newsletters.

The copyright of all photos taken by the legislators (Assembly and Senate) remains with the legislators. They never relinquished it. The subsequent publication (in newsletter form or otherwise) does not vitiate or modify the underlying copyright.

The upload information is accurate and manifestly disclosed, on the Summary Form as provided. If there is evidence to the contrary, please provide it so that I may act properly and expeditiously.

If there is some protocol I have missed, please inform me (I would greatly appreciate it!) so that I can complete this article, and proceed with other matters.

Thanks as always,

MBernal615 (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

To the Media Copyright Questions Page

I received the following Notice of Possible Photo Deletion:

Possibly unfree File:Diazphoto-2 .jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Diazphoto-2 .jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Lincolnite (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC) --Lincolnite (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The copyright to the photo in question, is owned by the subject of the bio article - Ruben Diaz Jr.

The notice further encouraged me to pursue a "Non Free Content" license - but I'm not sure that is correct, since the owner of the photo (Diaz) never relinquished the copyright. He is free to release the photo, at will.

The "Notice of Possible Photo Deletion" also stated that the photo had been "duplicated" from another source, which is incorrect. The photo itself was the original source.

What is the appopriate license or action to take, to avoid deletion (within 48 hours) of this and other photos?

Thank you,

MBernal615 (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename?

Shall I rename the article from Ruben Diaz Jr. to Rubén Díaz, Jr. to match his father's? (See his NY State Assembly page for mixed name styles...) —EqualRights (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ruben Diaz Jr.

Equal,

Neither the New York Times, the Daily News (New York), the New York Post, the Village Voice, the Associated Press, Google nor Yahoo have placed accents over the names of Ruben Diaz or Ruben Diaz Jr.

I know you are editing in good faith, and that is always appreciated (thanks, Equal).

You placed the accents on Ruben Diaz last week.

Doing the same to Ruben Diaz Jr. this week - to match your own prior edit - places the name out of conformity with how it is being used, in all prevailing media.

In the end, it's no big deal...your call.

All best,

MBernal615 (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

NO to re-naming Ruben Diaz Jr.

Equal,

I have just reviewed the recent editorial history of the another article, that of Ruben Diaz (as opposed to Ruben Diaz Jr.)

Here are the most recent entries:

• Given that his name is properly written "Rubén Díaz",[1] I propose the article be renamed (with a redirect from the current non-accented name per WP:Proper names.)—EqualRights (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agree. GeneralBelly (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done (though I'm not sure that Ruben Diaz should continue to redirect to this article rather than the Rubén Díaz disambiguation page...)—EqualRights (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, this innocent "name change" then results in a de facto restriction of access to the initial Ruben Diaz article.

Due to those actions a journalist, student, or member of the general public, could search for Ruben Diaz and miss the article entirely.

In view of this editorial sequence, and the suppression of access which it may cause, I add to my comment above, with respect to the name change of yet another article: Ruben Diaz Jr.

This is a very harmful path...the suppression of access to information.

I firmly advise against altering the name of this article, and restricting any access to it.

Thank you,

MBernal615 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the situation. There is no actual Ruben Diaz (no accents) article - look closely at the top right of the page after clicking on it; it's a redirection page that currently points to Rubén Díaz (politician), the State Senator.

Now try this: enter "Ruben Diaz" in the search field on the left. It currently redirects to Rubén Díaz (politician), which I believe is problematic because it doesn't guide the user to any of the other articles about

various people named Rubén Díaz/Ruben Diaz.

I have suggested two separate proposals:

• Ruben Diaz should instead redirect to Rubén Díaz (accents), which is a disambiguation page listing all three articles, so users will be aware of their existence. I feel strongly enough to go ahead and do this soon, since as you say, the public could miss the other articles entirely when searching. Note that this redirection has been in place for a long time and predates my changes.
• I wondered if Ruben Diaz Jr. should also be renamed with accent marks. I don't have a strong feeling about doing so; since you appear to be in contact with his office, perhaps you could inquire if they have any preference. (Personally, I think too many people and newspapers are just too lazy to use them, but I think it shows respect to use them properly.) —EqualRights (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Contact with Ruben Diaz, Jr.

Equal,

That was a sensible approach...to receive direct feedback from Ruben Diaz Jr. and the Assembly office of Ruben Diaz Jr.

I have done so and the clear, decisive answer is that he does NOT desire the accents.

For repeated affirmation of this, please note the manner in which Ruben Diaz Jr. signs his own name.

In every Assembly Newsletter, he signs it without any accents.

Here is an example: http://assembly.state.ny.us/comm/ARRC/20060802/

Thank you,

74.202.51.11 (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, good to know - thanks —EqualRights (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Permissions sent to OTRS

Dear Tony the Marine and Lincolnite:

Thank you for your advice on January 16, 2009 regarding the copyright licensing procedure, for the photos of Ruben Diaz Jr.

Tony, I followed your advice exactly as you stated on 1/16/09, and as seconded by Lincolnite on that same day.

In accordance with this procedure:

Permissions were all sent to OTRS, and all notices and adjustments were placed on the summary page of each respective photo.

Thank you again Tony, for your great help.

Thank you Lincolnite.

All the best,

MBernal615 (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your Deletion of a photo from Ruben Diaz Jr.

Dear Stifle,

On February 16 you deleted the following photo:

• 12:55, 16 February 2009 Stifle (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Diazphoto-2 .jpg" ‎ (Listed on PUI for over two weeks: Since Jan 15)

This photo was deleted from the Ruben Diaz Jr. article.

I do not believe this photo should have been deleted.

On January 16, 2009 an Administrator named Tony the Marine wrote the exact procedure I should follow, in order to properly upload the photo.

You can read this procedure, as sent by the Administrator, on my talk page (1/16/09).

I followed the procedure to the letter.

1) Permission was sent by Ruben Diaz Jr. to permissions-en@wikimedia.org

2) A notice that Permission was sent to OTRS was prominently placed in the Image File of the photo.

3) The deletion notice was removed.

4) The photo was uploaded.

5) I notified the Adminstrator of all this on 1/21/09 (see my talk page, 1/21/09).

6) The Administrator acknowledged this and approved on 1/21/09 (see my talk page, 1/21/09).

In view of this, I do not know why you deleted the photo.

I tried to re-instate the photo but was not able to.

With utmost respect, I ask that you re-instate the photo, or communicate the reason why the photo was improper.

I will then seek to resolve this, as expeditiously as possible.

Thank you for your assistance.

MBernal615 (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ruben Diaz Jr. - photo permission to OTRS

Dear Stifle,

Thank you for responding about the Ruben Diaz, Jr. photo.

Below is the information you requested, regarding the permission that was sent to OTRS.

Thank you again for your assistance.

MBernal615 (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Subject: Photo 2 Copyright

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:58:32 -0500 From: Assemblyman Ruben Diaz, Jr. <diazr@assembly.state.ny.us> Organization: New York State Assembly

To: permissions-en@wikimedia.org

CC: mbernal615@aol.com

I, Ruben Diaz Jr., as the copyright holder of the image attached in Diaz_photo-2.jpg , agree to release it in under the terms of the following licenses:

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License

GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.

I understand that this allows anyone to use the image for any purpose, including commercial use, as long as the constraints in the license, like attribution, are respected.

Re-upload of Ruben Diaz Jr. -- Not Working

Dear Stifle,

Thank you for verifying the permission for the Ruben Diaz Jr. photo.

You mentioned "some other issues" with respect to the image permission...

When I read the Image File, the only issue I saw was that the photo had been "listed on PUI for over two weeks." That issue has now been clarified and addressed.

Here are the latest three entries in that file:

• 21:25, 19 February 2009 Stifle (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Diazphoto-2 .jpg" ‎ (oopsie)

• 21:24, 19 February 2009 Stifle (Talk | contribs) restored "File:Diazphoto-2 .jpg" ‎ (3 revisions and 1 file restored: permission received)

• 12:55, 16 February 2009 Stifle (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Diazphoto-2 .jpg" ‎ (Listed on PUI for over two weeks: Since Jan 15)

I am not sure what the "oopsie" refers to, in your last entry.

I spent two hours last night and another hour today, trying to upload this photo.

Could you please assist with the upload of this photo - either upload it, or convey a clear set of instructions, so that I may complete this process?

I would greatly appreciate your help.

Thank you,

MBernal615 (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Rainbow Coalition

The article section previously referred to Diaz as a founding member of the Rainbow Coalition and then detailed the achievements of that Coalition. Every cited reference in the article refers to the group as the Rainbow Rebels, not Rainbox Coalition. Because of that, and because of possible confusion with Jesse Jackson's National Rainbow Coaltion now called the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, I have edited the article to include the name of the group as it has been referred to in the local press. --Franklin Moore (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Diaz Senior

The prior version of this section read (as indeed does most of this article) as a press release from Mr. Diaz, Jr.'s office, listing the accomplishments of Diaz' father. Diaz, Sr. is an extremely controversial person within the Democratic Party and if his accomplishments are to be listed here, then some reference to those controversies should also be listed. For this reason I added a small reference to the Gang of Three issue to balance this section. --Franklin Moore (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Constituent Services

The article contained the following quote

As of 1997, Diaz's district office has handled over 3,000 constituent matters per year.

I changed the "As of" to "Since" as I assumed that was what was meant. As Diaz entered the State Assmebly in 1997, it did not make sense that "as of" that year, he could have already handled 3000 constituent matters per year.

However that is not my major problem with this statement. My major concern is verifiabilty. The article cites, as support for this claim, Diaz' biography page on the State Assembly´s web page, as well as his annual newsletters to his constiuents. First I would say that these are little more than press releases from Diaz himself, and while they may be accurate they are not the best source for an encylopedia (independent 3rd party sources are far better). Leaving that aside, I read through these materials and cannot find that they ever confirm the number of constituent matters the Assemblyman has handled (maybe I missed it). As I have no reason to doubt the underlying truth of the claim, I have not removed it, but do ask that a proper citation be added to support the statement. --Franklin Moore (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

POV TAG

I reluctantly placed the POV Tag on this article, because I am confident that the prior editors who have done so much to expand this article did so in good faith. That having been said, the article has problems with neutrality and verifiability. I have attempted to correct these with some edits, but placed this tag, in the hope of attracting other editors to the page so that the article may be improved. Let me outline my major concerns.

The section on Advocacy and legislation cites almost exclusively to Assemblyman Diaz’ own press releases (and constituent mailers). I am not saying that these materials are false, but I think we must admit that they are biased, created by the subject of this article to promote himself. Surely there are independent third party sources which detail both his accomplishments and, might I add, failures.

The Section on the Rainbow Rebels has a different set of problems. It does cite to independent news reports, but the language of the section is effusively praising of the group, using phrases like: “Due to its progressive politics, and its emphasis on tolerance and inclusion, the Rainbow Rebels achieved sudden and widespread popularity ….” While it does this, very little context is provided and there is absolutely nothing setting forth the position of the County Party establishment. I read the news articles and it seems to me that this was a major battle between two factions for control of the Bronx Democratic Party. It also seems that the Rainbow Rebels won that battle. I know the old adage that the winner always writes the history, but that should not be true. This section needs to be rewritten to state the facts of this battle, and let those facts speak for themselves.

I hope to work with others to correct these problems and improve this article. --Franklin Moore (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to Franklin Moore re: NPOV of Ruben Diaz Jr. article

Dear Franklin,

I noted the thoughtfulness of your commentary regarding the Ruben Diaz Jr. article.

As a University Professor and reader of Reinaldo Arenas, you set a high standard of discourse!

I will address your points one at a time, though this will probably take a day or two. Hopefully by the end of that, we will have a foundation for a reasonable point of consensus.

In this note today, I will address the validity of New York State Assembly Publications (including newsletters) as a source of information regarding the New York State Legislature.

A few months ago, I sent a similar note to an editor named GeneralBelly...you can read this note in my talk page.

NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY PUBLICATIONS

For information (not conjecture) about New York State legislation, the official publications of the New York State Legislature are a primary resource.

New York State Assembly Newsletters are edited, vetted, typeset, printed, and mailed by the government of the State of New York.

Every time a State Assembly Newsletter is cited in the Ruben Diaz Jr. article, it is to reference a fact – not a viewpoint or opinion.

For example, with respect to a New York State Assembly Newsletter which GeneralBelly quoted:

In the area of Brownfield Cleanup Legislation the Assembly Newsletter provides the bill number (A. 11768) and this bill summary: “will provide more than double the current tax incentives for actual site cleanup – up to 50 percent of the costs of remediation; limit the redevelopment credits on non-manufacturing sites to $35 million or three times the cost of site cleanup, whichever is less; limit the redevelopment credits on manufacturing sites to $45 million or six times the cost of site cleanup, whichever is less; allow any project application that has been received and approved by the DEC to continue to be eligible for current-law tax credits; and increase by 2 percent the redevelopment credit for sites developed in conformance with the Brownfield Opportunity Area Plan.”

In the area of Green Roof Property Tax Abatement, that same Assembly Newsletter provides the bill numbers (A.10234 and A.11226) and the following bill summary: “This tax abatement will offset 35% of the costs of installing a green roof on a standard roof.”

This level of detail and precision, applies to every instance in which a New York State Assembly Newsletter is cited (as a footnote) for the purpose of supplying a legislative fact, and a credible source for that fact.

Precedent exists in Wikipedia, for using a government publication in this manner. You don’t need to look very far.

Please review Reference #87 in the Wikipedia article of David Paterson, the current Governor of New York State. Here is a direct link to the text of this Reference: http://www.ny.gov/governor/press/press_0729081.html

If you have time, please review Reference #106 in that same Wikipedia article. Here is the direct link to its content: http://www.patersonforny.com/main.cfm?s=dap

The Ruben Diaz Jr. citations are specifically selected. They supply the direct facts, regarding legislation as it appears, in the body of the Wikipedia article. This use was more carefully and narrowly drawn, than Reference #106 as shown above, for the Governor of New York State.

Again I must affirm, that for information (not conjecture) about New York State legislation, the official publications of the New York State Legislature are a primary resource.

Thanks again for your attention to the Ruben Diaz Jr. article.

Regards,

MBernal615 (talk) 07:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to Franklin Moore re: Rainbow Coalition / Rainbow Rebels

Franklin,

Herein is the additional context you requested, with respect to the Rainbow Coalition.

1) RAINBOW COALITION vs. RAINBOW REBELLION

The New York Times designated them as the Rainbow Coalition. See:

http://search.aol.com/aol/search?&query=Bronx+Democrats+Split+on+Judicial+Race%2C&invocationType=tb50aoldesktopab

The New York Sun also referred to them as a Rainbow Coalition. See:

http://search.aol.com/aol/search?&query=Bronx+Democrats+In+Post-Primary+Disarray%2C&invocationType=tb50aoldesktopab

2) FACTS REGARDING THE BATTLE FOR CONTROL OF BRONX COUNTY

Franklin, this battle was fascinating and often surreal.

It included:

a) the stealing of a P.A. system in order to prevent a mandated vote

b) senior citizens bussed in for a "free show and a chicken dinner"

c) the seniors forced to vote (they didn't know what for) then sent home...without any chicken

d) all of this orchestrated by Bronx County Leader José Rivera, trying to retain his power

3) SOURCES FOR THIS CIRCUS-LIKE BEHAVIOR

Naturally, this astounding spectacle did not escape the notice of the New York press. Here are some sources, all of which are listed in the current Ruben Diaz, Jr. article:

Kappstatter, Bob, (12/6/08), New Dem Boss Carl Heastie Ushers in Calm After Disruptive Storm Over Power, New York Daily News

Benjamin, Elizabeth, (9/29/08), Seeing Double In The Bronx, New York Daily News

Giove, Candice, (9/29/08), Rivera, Rebels, Each Claim Bronx Victory, The Village Voice

Giove, Candice, (9/29/08), Bronx Dem Boss Storms Meeting, The Village Voice

4) PRIOR INCLUSION OF THIS MATERIAL IN THE RUBEN DIAZ JR. ARTICLE

The above-cited events were previously included in the Ruben Diaz, Jr. article, but were deleted by the editor named GeneralBelly.

In order to avoid any NPOV controversy, I did not dispute GeneralBelly's deletion.

BUT PLEASE NOTE:

Given the above history, as documented by the New York press, the Ruben Diaz Jr. article has been more than conservative in maintaining its NPOV.

It avoided any inflammatory events, accepted GeneralBelly's deletion, and adhered to the documented facts.

Regards,

MBernal615 (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

== Reply

Thanks MBernal for your quick and thoughtful response. I think we can work together to improve this article. Let me address some of your issues.

• Rainbow Coalition vs Rainbow Rebels. I read the NY Times article using the term Rainbow Coalition and I would agree that this provides some support for using that name in this article. I would still note that the majority of the other sources, use the term Rainbow Rebels. Therefore at the very least, I think this needs a bit more research, and I will do some later today. I will say that my major concern here is the possible confusion that the term has with Jesse Jackson's former National Rainbow Coalition, now called Rainbow/PUSH Coalition. As far as I know there is no formal connection between the Bronx Group and Jesse Jackson's group, so I think the article should avoid any confusion. I would also note that because of the positions taken by Jesse Jackson's organization, the term "Rainbow Coalition" has become a form of "Dog-whistle Politics" such that when a person says he/she is identified with the "Rainbow Coalition" that person is fully supportive of a long list of progressive policies supported by Jesse Jackson. Thus the term has become a "code word" to many constituencies. For example in the LGBT community often when they hear that a person is a member of the "Rainbow Coalition", the immediate reaction is that the politician is supportive of the LGBT Community's quest for full equality including Marriage Equality. For better or worse, the term has taken on this type of Code usage. For that reason, it should be carefully used. Perhaps what should be done here is to add a qualifier, so that the article reads something like, "Diaz was a founder member of the Rainbow Coalition (aka Rainbow Rebels), not to be confused with Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, ....." If you wish we can try to work on some language for this.

• Conflict in the Bronx Democratic Party. With regard to the substance of the section on the Rainbow Rebels, let me add a couple of points. From what I have read, this appears to be a fascinating episode and I think should be expanded with facts. As an aside, I will note that I am personally delighted with the results. I happen to personally know Elizabeth Taylor and am so delighted at her success. These are my personal biases, and I suspect that you and I agree on this. However, when writing for Wikipedia we must make great efforts to keep that bias out of the article. There is a Wikipedia mantra which basically says let the facts speak for themselves and let the readers draw the conclusion from those facts. The section as it reads now contains language that (1) does not set the events in their context (these issues predate the Taylor run for judgeship) and (2) uses adjectives that practically gush over the victory of the rebels. I will try to work on some language that I think might be more balanced and which I will also hope demonstrate the importance of what has happened. However as I am in Argentina, I will have to rely only on Internet available information. I hope that we can work together on this.

• Use of Press releases as sources. I am not saying that Assemblyman Diaz' Press Releases are false, what I am saying is that they are biased. While the State does publish them, great deference is given to the member's wishes in what they include and they are written so as to make the Assemblyman look as good as possible (while being truthful). This is true of all such Press Releases, so I am not singling out Diaz in particular. For Example, I am certain that I could go through all of the White House Press Releases published by the US Government during the Bush administration. They were published by the government; they were fact checked and can be said to represent one version of the truth. They also are biased. A statement like, "The fact that the US has not been attacked since 9/11 demonstrates that George W. Bush tireless efforts to stop terrorism have kept America safe." This is the type of language that gets into such press releases; such statements are not demonstrably false, but they are clearly biased. It is for this reason that reliance on such materials for an encyclopedia should be minimized. They lead to statements that are either biased or are meaningless. From the Diaz article I note language like "Diaz is a supporter of higher education." I do not doubt this to be true, but i doubt there is a single politician in the world that could not say the exact same thing. The question is not does a person support higher education, but what has that person done in this regard. We should let the facts speak for themselves and then the reader can determine whether the person is, or is not a "supporter of higher education." i would also note that on this statement, the cited material appears to refer only to primary and secondary education, not higher education. --Franklin Moore (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexnovo (talk • contribs) 17:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

To Franklin Moore re: Ruben Diaz Jr. NPOV

Franklin,

Greetings from New York City, where it remains unseasonably cold.

I addressed the issues we've been discussing in the following manner:

• pared down the Ruben Diaz Sr. material

• deleted the constituency services material

• left your Rainbow Rebel designation, as written

• left your same-sex marriage edit, as written

With respect to the newsletters, I ask you to please review my previous note to you. The entirety of that note still applies.

The newsletters are being used to cite facts (specific legislative bills and specific budgetary allocations, in specific issue areas) and not opinions.

You used the statement “Diaz is a supporter of higher education” as an example. Here is what you stated:

• "Diaz is a supporter of higher education." I do not doubt this to be true, but i doubt there is a single politician in the world that could not say the exact same thing. The question is not does a person support higher education, but what has that person done in this regard. We should let the facts speak for themselves and then the reader can determine whether the person is, or is not a "supporter of higher education."

Franklin, your “Higher Education” illustrates precisely what I am saying. When you click to the in-line citation, you will see the following inside the newsletter:

HIGHER EDUCATION

Restoring nearly 400 million in Funding for Higher Education – In the legislative budget, Assemblyman Rubén Díaz, Jr., alongside his fellow legislators, fought to protect and save funding for higher education:

• By providing $79.4 million more than the governor’s budget to help CUNY and SUNY community colleges continue to provide quality affordable higher education.

• Including $74 million in base aid, $3.4 million in rental aid, and $2 million in contract course aid.

• Keeping College Affordable, the Legislature completely restored the governor’s cuts to the Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) and opportunity programs.

This year’s legislative budget restored $36.9 million for Educational Opportunity Programs, whose direct aid plays a crucial role in helping New York’s most disadvantaged students. past programs have included HEOP, SEEK, STEP/CSTEP and College Discovery. New York should be expanding access to higher education, not limiting opportunities for our working families and low income students. These programs help students pay for text books and provide counseling and tutoring.

Franklin, as you can see...

The newsletter is providing precisely the type of information, which you said was missing. Without the newsletter, there would indeed be an absence of context and information, and a consequent POV violation.

Again, I must reiterate the entirety of my prior note to you, with respect to newsletters. Please review it when you are able, and we’ll correspond about this again.

Finally thanks for your own thoughtful responses! It’s a pleasure to work with someone, in this deliberate a manner.

Best wishes for a Happy Easter, and a well-deserved spring break.

Regards,

MBernal615 (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV response

Hi there, thanks for the response (sorry you are still cold up there).

• As to the paring down of the Information on Ruben Senior, I have no problem with the way you changed it. Before it had said that Senior was "noteworthy" or "well-known" and I thought that if that was there, then the article should at least say that his noterity is controversial. But as it reads now I have no problem.

• As to the Higher Education funding issue I have several comments.
  • First, I re-read the newsletter, and am sorry I missed the quote you provided. It was at the end, well after the section titled Simply Education and I missed it, for that I appologize.
  • I still think the Higher Education is illustrative of my major problems with this section of the article. It is the language itself that I have a problem with (as I alsways assumed that a newsletter cite could be found). The artilce says,

    Diaz is a supporter of higher education

  • This language is opinion, not fact. Facts are what a person did, opinions are what conclusions can be drawn from what was done. Let us take the newsletter in question and assume that it is 100% factual. What statement would of facts would it support: I suggest the following would be supportable from the Diaz Press Release:

    "In 2003, Diaz, working with others in the State Assemby, approved a higher education budget that provided $79.4 million more than the governor’s budget for CUNY and SUNY and which fully funded the TAP assistance program."

  • Now to my next point about biases in Assemlyperson's newsletters. I agree that everything in Diaz' newsletter is true, but is it the whole truth. In other words does it put it in to context? In order to illustrate this, let me use sources in addition to Diaz´s newsletters as it relates to the 2003 Higher Education Budget. According to the New York Times[[1]], in 2003

    Governor Pataki's executive budget calls for cuts in direct support of $183 million for the State University of New York and $82 million for the City University of New York, and recommended that a third of the grant money students would receive through the state's Tuition Assistance Program be postponed until they graduate.

    So what are the facts? By putting the NY Times Article together with the Diaz press release we know that in 2003 Pataki´s budget proposed cutting $265 Million from CUNY and SUNY and also cutting TAP by one third. Diaz and others in the legislature fully restored TAP and reduced the budget cuts to CUNY and SUNY by $79.4 Million but still cut the Higher Education Budget by $183.6 Million.

• • So is Diaz, as a the article now reads a "supporter of Higher Education?" That is an opinion which the reader should be able to draw from the facts. Some will say yes, he fought to get as much as he could for higher education, other will disagree, still others will say that he wasted money. We at Wikipedia should let the reader decide those things and just tell them the facts.

PROPOSAL

We do not need to detail each tiny step in the process in order to avoid POV and use of opinions. Indeed I think we can correct this statement on Higher Eduaction rather easily: Here is my proposal:

I think we should delete the following language:

Diaz is a supporter of higher education[30] and of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) campaign to protect the constitutional right to a basic education.[31][32][33]

amd replace it with:

Diaz, a member of the Assembly's Education Committee, has been outspoken on eduactional issues. He has addressed the The International Democratic Education Conference (IDEC)[[2]] and has praised the Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) campaign to protect the constitutional right to a basic education. In 2003, when Governor George Pataki sought to cut the State's higher education budget, Diaz was a vocal critic and, togther with others in the state legislature he was able to restore some of the Governor's proposed cuts.[[3]][[4]]

What do you think? I think it is much better than what is now in the article, it contains facts, references both to his newsletters and outside third parties, and shows what he has done in this regard. It also puts things into context, so that a reader should be able to decide for him or herself if they agree or disagree with Diaz' work on education and does not purport to decide for them.

• The above illustration on Higher education is also applicable to many of the other issues in the article. Because his newsletters say something which may be true, it is often not the whole truth and we should therefore strive to use third party sources. Hi there, thanks for the response (sorry you are still cold up there).
• As to the paring down of the Information on Ruben Senior, I have no problem with the way you changed it. Before it had said that Senior was "noteworthy" or "well-known" and I thought that if that was there, then the article should at least say that his noterity is controversial. But as it reads now I have no problem.

• As to the Higher Education funding issue I have several comments.
  • First, I re-read the newsletter, and am sorry I missed the quote you provided. It was at the end, well after the section titled Simply Education and I missed it, for that I appologize.
  • I still think the Higher Education is illustrative of my major problems with this section of the article. It is the language itself that I have a problem with (as I alsways assumed that a newsletter cite could be found). The artilce says,

    Diaz is a supporter of higher education

  • This language is opinion, not fact. Facts are what a person did, opinions are what conclusions can be drawn from what was done. Let us take the newsletter in question and assume that it is 100% factual. What statement would of facts would it support: I suggest the following would be supportable from the Diaz Press Release:

    "In 2003, Diaz, working with others in the State Assemby, approved a higher education budget that provided $79.4 million more than the governor’s budget for CUNY and SUNY and which fully funded the TAP assistance program."

  • Now to my next point about biases in Assemlyperson's newsletters. I agree that everything in Diaz' newsletter is true, but is it the whole truth. In other words does it put it in to context? In order to illustrate this, let me use sources in addition to Diaz´s newsletters as it relates to the 2003 Higher Education Budget. According to the New York Times[[5]], in 2003

    Governor Pataki's executive budget calls for cuts in direct support of $183 million for the State University of New York and $82 million for the City University of New York, and recommended that a third of the grant money students would receive through the state's Tuition Assistance Program be postponed until they graduate.

    So what are the facts? By putting the NY Times Article together with the Diaz press release we know that in 2003 Pataki´s budget proposed cutting $265 Million from CUNY and SUNY and also cutting TAP by one third. Diaz and others in the legislature fully restored TAP and reduced the budget cuts to CUNY and SUNY by $79.4 Million but still cut the Higher Education Budget by $183.6 Million.

• • So is Diaz, as a the article now reads a "supporter of Higher Education?" That is an opinion which the reader should be able to draw from the facts. Some will say yes, he fought to get as much as he could for higher education, other will disagree, still others will say that he wasted money. We at Wikipedia should let the reader decide those things and just tell them the facts.

PROPOSAL

We do not need to detail each tiny step in the process in order to avoid POV and use of opinions. Indeed I think we can correct this statement on Higher Eduaction rather easily: Here is my proposal:

I think we should delete the following language:

Diaz is a supporter of higher education[30] and of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) campaign to protect the constitutional right to a basic education.[31][32][33]

amd replace it with:

Diaz, a member of the Assembly's Education Committee, has been outspoken on eduactional issues. He has addressed the The International Democratic Education Conference (IDEC)[[6]] and has praised the Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) campaign to protect the constitutional right to a basic education. In 2003, when Governor George Pataki sought to cut the State's higher education budget, Diaz was a vocal critic and, togther with others in the state legislature he was able to restore some of the Governor's proposed cuts.[[7]][[8]]

What do you think? I think it is much better than what is now in the article, it contains facts, references both to his newsletters and outside third parties, and shows what he has done in this regard. It also puts things into context, so that a reader should be able to decide for him or herself if they agree or disagree with Diaz' work on education and does not purport to decide for them.

• The above illustration on Higher education is also applicable to many of the other issues in the article. Because his newsletters say something which may be true, it is often not the whole truth and we should therefore strive to use third party sources.

--Franklin Moore (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of more points: As to the Rainbow Rebels question. I am glad you agree on the name of the group. I have been attempting to come up with some langauge to clairfy what happened. I ran accross these articles [9] [10] and think that from them we might be able to add to this section, put things into context and tone down some of the language. What do you think? --Franklin Moore (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

--190.55.171.103 (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

>A final update for today. I tweeked my proposed langauge and made the edit to the article as to the education issue. Let me know if what you think. --Franklin Moore (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

References

Nice work, Franklin

Franklin,

That edit worked very well. Thoughtfully and artfully done.

I followed up on some small things (typos, minor syntax) and voila! It was a nice addition to the piece.

Thanks, Franklin.

MBernal615 (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Rainbow Rebels -- word choice/syntax

Franklin,

I pared down the the Rainbow Rebels section.

The first sentence is simplified, sourced, and documented by the seven in-line citations that follow it.

MBernal615 (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the okay on the changes to the education comments. I think they helped the article a lot. I also like what you have done regrading the Rainbow Rebels. While i think there is still much that can be done to improve this article, and I hope we will continue working together on that. I think the article is improved enough to remove the NPOV tag that I placed. So I am doing that now. I will be making some more suggestions over the next few days on ways to imrove the article even further and hope to have your help and input in this.--Franklin Moore (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Franklin

Franklin,

Thank you for removing the NPOV tag from Ruben Diaz Jr. and yes, I look forward to working with you on this.

You have a strong editor's eye and a good way of working with people.

Both are really appreciated.

All best,

MBernal615 (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

COI

This article was extensively edited and restructured by the Director of IT for Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr., with removal of referenes et al. so there are definite COI problems. Hekerui (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)