Talk:Curtis Sliwa/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

comment

I first heard about the Guardian Angels in the early 1980's. I used to collect Blackbelt Magazine and have some with articles about Sliwa and the Guardian Angels, and one with Mary Sliwa on the cover in beret demonstrating a selfdefense takedown.

I am glad to know they are still a strong and growing organization.

This guy is full of crap. While the Guardian Angels have done some local good, Silwa has become an even bigger blowhard since the '80s. Typical.

Okay, wasn't his story kind of included in one of the Law and Order episodes?Themalau 05:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Gambino

The Gambino section is not particularly clear. At first reading, one would assume the trials took place not longer after the shooting in 1992. However given the fact it wasn't until 2005 that a mistrial occured, obviously thisw as not the case. I presume the evidence was sufficient for a trial only in 2004 or so but this isn't clear fromt his article Nil Einne 11:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Staged kidnapping event

Didn't Curtis Sliwa stage a kidnapping event where his sister was kidnapped? Later it turned out it was just staged to get publicity. Why has this been long removed from the article?

"Under questioning, Sliwa, 51, was forced to admit that over the years he had staged a number of publicity stunts to get media attention for the Guardian Angels, founded in the late 1970s while the Brooklyn Prep High School dropout was working as a night manager at a Bronx McDonald's.

He said he once had his older sister pose as a mugging victim whose purse was returned to her by a Guardian Angel - $300 still inside. He claimed he'd been kidnapped and abandoned in a Jones Beach parking lot by a transit cop - a hoax he said he hoped would stop police from harassing his subway security patrol.

"It was the dumbest thing I ever did in my life," Sliwa said.

Sliwa also claimed that as he lay bleeding a cop mocked him, saying "Look at Superman now."

Source:www.guardianangels.org/pdf/1176.pdf --24.193.80.232 05:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll also find mention of that in a recent new york times article about him. Since it's the sort of assertion about a living person that we would need to be extra careful about (to avoid libel), we would want really good, neutral sources though. See WP:SPS and Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources before adding it. - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Connected to Opie and Anthony?

Where's the citation for this? This is dubious to me as O and A are competitors with Sliwa. patsw (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Curtis Silwa advocated violence

Ironically, this founder of the Guardian Angels--an organization established to fight crime and violence--has himself advocated violence on a FOXNews show.

wikipedia contributor owlmonkey seems to have a personal interest in the Guardian Angels and in Curtis Silwa (they are mentioned on Owlmoney's profile page), and he keeps removing my mention of this event. Conversation follows:

Curtis Silwa On May 16, 2007 on the FOX News network's Hannity & Colmes show, Silwa advocated the use of violence against XM Satellite radio shock jocks Opie and Anthony for engaging in discussion about forced sex with the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and others. Clip available on YouTube

You don't think that's major? This is a guy who started an organization to fight violence and crime advocating the use of violence?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felicityhughes (talk • contribs) 21:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well two thoughts. 1) it was awhile ago but it didn't really get pickup up by secondary sources and commented upon. I see a couple blogs mentioning it, but no news sources. but 2) when i watched it I didn't see that he was advocating violence generally, just that he was steaming mad at what he perceived these two guys as doing: advocating rape. And then specifically, what he said was that in his old neighborhood if people were advocating rape the local ruffians would rough them up. he did say yes to the follow up question "so you're advocating violence?" but that was specifically framed by his earlier statements. That is to say, by this idea that these folks were advocating rape. Whether or not the DJ's really were advocating rape was then a topic of discussion and rebut in that youtube segment and the subsequent part 2 segment. But back to point #1, if his comments weren't really noteworthy to be reported upon in citable references - beyond the original source - then we probably shouldn't be including it in an encyclopedia article about him. Especially because he's a living person (see WP:BLP) and any criticisms must have secondary sources per that guideline. - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

me: You think secondary sources are necessary with the original source is the person himself, recording on video tape with audio? I'll create my own Curtis Silwa page on Google Knol, where authors don't have to tolerate fools like yourself.

owlmonkey: It's not a question of what he said, it's a question of notability and how it is viewed. If no secondary sources think it was relevant, then why should it be here? This is especially important for biographies of living persons, per wikipedia policy. Sounds like Knol is a better fit for your style of editing, since your idea of collaboration includes insulting other editors. But a word of caution: the wikipedia policy is to avoid libel, and if you go around writing potentially libelous statements about living persons then it is you who are potentially accountable for them — in civil court — and every article on knol as far as i know has your full name listed as the author. That's a different kind of forum and writing biographies about people there is more like publishing an unauthorized biography about someone and putting your name on it. It's going to be really interesting to see how biographic entries play out there, especially concerning criticism. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

me: First you wrote, "it was awhile ago but it didn't really get pickup up by secondary sources and commented upon" then you wrote "If no secondary sources think it was relevant, then why should it be here?"

But secondary sources DID pick it up.

http://digg.com/people/Guardian_Angels_Curtis_Sliwa_advocates_violence_against_Opie_Anthony 282 diggs is pretty significant, and there are dozens of comments on the youtube video page and on the digg page.

I don't read dailykos, but I understand it's a major political blog: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/29/1028/25810/730/466083 M. Sliwa is Maria Sliwa, the sister of right-wing New York City talk show host Curtis Sliwa, founder of the Guardian Angels and a strong supporter of the Republican Party who regularly speaks at Republican fund-raisers and national conventions. Curtis Sliwa himself advocates violence (against talk radio hosts Opie and Anthony).

You have no business editing any biographies of living persons if you think it's libelous to point out what someone himself (or herself) said on a recorded and nationally televised program. Raising that concern in reaction to my edit is seriously ridiculous. Sounds like your idea of collaboration is making up rubbish excuses so you can be a win an argument and be a control freak.

a ha, just read your bio. You list Guardian Angels and Curtis Silwa as your personal interests, that makes you unfairly biased. Stop making excuses and let the truth be told. This whole ordeal doesn't make you much of a Buddhist in my book.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Owlmonkey"

It's not biased to have an interest. How else would you care about an article to edit? I list it as an interest because I've put energy into those articles. I found and solicited the pictures, for example. You seem to have an interest in the article too, yes?
Please read the whole WP:BLP policy, it's been given a lot of thought, to avoid wikipedia turning into a place where anyone with an ax to grind doesn't weigh in on every controversial, notable figure. Can you imagine for a moment what would happen without those guidelines? The rules about adding criticism or controversial statements are there for a reason. We don't add random facts to try to imply something, we summarize notable views on a topic. How? By using credible and neutral secondary sources. DailyKos is not a neutral source and he doesn't talk *about* the incident he just mentions the youtube video to make a point. If he was talking about it, then we could cite it as a criticism specifically from "the liberal blog DailyKos" or some qualifier but then is really that trustable or noteworthy if an anti-conservative blog criticizes a conservative popular figure? and Digg is equivalent to a forum or blog, not a fact-checked, neutral news source. Review WP:SOURCES more about sources and questionable sources. I'm not making all this up.
I'm sorry you don't like my efforts here, but I'm trying to understand and help keep wikipedia articles about living persons within guidelines. It's too easy for wikipedia to turn into place where anyone can criticize anyone they want otherwise, to the point of libel. You are welcome to disagree with me. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
You might also find it interesting to read the ongoing discussion about the BLP policy, on its talk page, as a way to get more of a sense of the ongoing evolution and thoughts on it. Why blogs are generally avoided as sources was a recent discussion point there, for example, in regards to biographic articles. It has also been a recent topic among the administrators, and it looks like it is becoming an area where even more strict control is occurring. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine to move this discussion from my talk page here, since it seems we're not coming to an agreement about this and you keep reverting the deletion. - Owlmonkey (talk) 06:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I requested a third party opinion on our disagreement. In summary, I do find Sliwa's rant on that TV show interesting. But unless it's discussed in secondary sources (and not just referred to once in a liberal blog or on digg) we shouldn't be including it in a biography about a living person, per policy. and it's a good policy. otherwise axe grinding would be rampant. it's hard enough to avoid axe grinding on biography articles, especially about controversial figures. - Owlmonkey (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Per WP:EL "There is no blanket ban on linking to [YouTube] as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page"--and I note there's already one other YouTube external link. If Sliwa made a controversial statement on Fox, and it's reproduced in fair-use fashion on YouTube, quoting Sliwa is fine, and linking to the video is also recommended. What is NOT permitted is to introduce commentary that doesn't come from a secondary source. Just because he answers "yes" to a host's question is not a sufficient reason to say he advocated violence--We do not synthesize statements together here to draw conclusions, that is original research. Commentators elsewhere can, and we can quote who said what, but we draw the line at that. Jclemens (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the third party opinion. In your edit summary you also suggested "write up a transcript of the exchange". I'm concerned a transcript will out weight the rest of the media section, but I'm willing to compromise as long as the synthesizing opinion about the incident is removed. Here is part the transcript, but more is probably needed:
  • Hannity: It wasn't Opie and Andy who said it, they had a homeless guy in there and they were just sort of...
  • Clark: It's one minute of a prolonged homeless man's rape that's now being...
  • Sliwa: The homeless guy is the setup guy for the...
  • Hannity: ...he was the guy making the statements and they were joking about it. It was juvenile, immature, mean even.
  • Clark: Of course.
  • Sliwa: But there is a tag team here with CBS, they can't be serious, they're acting like "oh no, we have the sanitized version of Opie and Anthony, the guys who advocated raping Condoleezza Rice...
  • Clark: They did not advocate rape.
  • Sliwa: Oh come on, I know what I hear.
  • Clark: It was not...
  • Sliwa: You're a woman, we guys don't worry about being raped, these guys were glorifying, they were getting their jollies off, by seeing Condoleezza Rice being raped.
  • Clark: They mention, they imply a rape. Yet on any crime show they glorify rape for entertainment value. How come on television it's not a problem but on radio it is?
  • Hannity: We now go to one case. We go to Imus, JV and Elvis, they did this one bit we've discussed in the past, in that case it was about an asian slur, the host happens to be married to an asian woman. Have we lost an ability to have adult humor on the radio? on the airwaves? even on unregulated air?
  • Sliwa: Absolutely... Ethnic.... Racial...
  • Colmes: Gone.
  • Sliwa: Well, it depends on where you are. Depending on your employer. But when you're talking about rape, you cross the line, now...
  • Clark: They weren't talking about rape, they were talking about violent sex.
  • Sliwa: Can we do this? Can we do this instead? Allow them to continue on XM, they're only going to be suspended with pay for thirty days. But in my neighborhood where I came from from Brooklyn, we would take two gavoones like this out, and you heard me say this before, I'd hit them both so hard their mothers would feel the vibrations. You know their mothers...
  • Clark: Now you're advocating violence.
  • Sliwa: You're dog gone right, what they said deserves some retaliation.
  • Clark: You're criticizing them for advocating rape, and now you're advocating violence.
  • Sliwa: If this was Nancy Pilosi, right, if these were liberal women you'd get your back out, these are three conservative women.
  • Colmes: I said it last time we talked about it: I deplore those comments regardless of who they said them about. I'm talking about free speech you're talking about violence.

There may be an error or two in this, the audio is hard to hear as they talk all over each other, but I think I captured the main statements from about the 3 minute mark on. - Owlmonkey (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I should also mention that the transcript starts out talking about the one month suspension of Opie and Anthony, and Sliwa explaining his opinion that it was these comments about rape that got them suspended for a month. So that context would be necessary to explain. then it's clear that opie and anthony did something serious enough to get suspended from their show, which then begins the discussion for was what they said serious enough to warrant the suspension and sliwa arguing that what they said was so hainus that they deserved worse. - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. That is kind of convoluted to summarize, and would take up a lot of space, even if you put it in a footnote. Other ideas? Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of Hannity & Colmes appearance

RfC: disagreement concerning including controversial statement Sliwa made which lacks secondary sources demonstrating significance but we have a transcript of the statements. question about meeting BLP guidelines, creating undue weight, or deserving mention posted from August 11, 2008 through August 18, 2008 - Owlmonkey (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The question comes down to this: If this incident is notable, why have none of the ordinary reliable sources taken note of it?

Digg is obviously not a reliable source, and Daily Kos, besides being questionable with respect to fact checking, is politically extreme and probably requires a balanced counteropinion. (BTW, the link given doesn't lead to anything relevant.) Fox is not really a secondary source here, because the recording is merely quoting Sliwa et al. without comment. That is, the source is not YouTube nor Fox, but Sliwa himself, in his impromptu remarks.

But impromptu remarks, especially made in emotional circumstances such as this, are probably not notable in themselves. Sometimes people misspeak, and sometimes they say things they don't really mean. When such remarks become the subject of controversy, that controversy may be notable, but there's no evidence of controversy here. BLP allows citing self-published material in some cases, but this doesn't include off-the-cuff comments, the point being that self-published material is presumably deliberate, not reacting to the moment, and therefore represents the person's true views.

Furthermore, the disputed material doesn't belong in the "Current media presence" section, which gives a chronology of Sliwa's media career. - Unconventional (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The notability guideline does not directly limit article content. Clark unquestionably accused Sliwa of advocating violent retaliation for remarks stating that Condoleezza Rice should be raped. (Now you're advocating violence.... You're criticizing them for advocating rape, and now you're advocating violence.) This seems relevant to the article and should be clearly attributed to Clark. Colmes's remark is also clearly directed at Sliwa where he says, I said it last time we talked about it: I deplore those comments regardless of who they said them about. I'm talking about free speech you're talking about violence. This seems pretty easy to summarize to me. How about,
Sliwa appeared as a guest on the May 15, 2007 edition of Hannity & Colmes, during a segment discussing controversial remarks made on the Opie and Anthony talk radio show. In response to Opie and Anthony's guest's remarks about committing a violent sex crime against Condoleezza Rice, Sliwa remarked that "...in my neighborhood where I came from from—Brooklyn—we would take two gavoones like this out and—you heard me say this before—I'd hit them both so hard their mothers would feel the vibrations.". Co-host Alan Colmes and guest [Firstname] Clark responded to these remarks, accusing Sliwa of advocating violence.
DickClarkMises (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for the comments so far. I agree notability doesn't limit article content generally, but it is my understanding of WP:BLP that implied criticism or praise about a living person needs reliable secondary sources to establish that it's noteworthy. So it's a higher standard for living person's articles, in my opinion. Therefore maybe this is more about noteworthiness of the quote, or how controversial it really perceived. No good secondary sources found the quote noteworthy, or commented that it was controversial, therefore it might give undue weight to the idea that it was controversial and noteworthy by including it nonetheless. Are we deciding that it was controversial? or are we finding that good secondary sources are finding it controversial? If we decide it was noteworthy without secondary sources finding it so, does that border on WP:OR? - Owlmonkey (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken in your interpretation of the BLP policy. Criticism as reported in a reliable source is acceptable, so long as it is attributed. We can rely on the Fox broadcast with regards to attributing the critical statements to Clark and Colmes. I also think you may be misinterpreting "secondary sources." Fox News broadcast the segment. We know it happened. We aren't relying upon a Wikipedian having heard it--we can attribute it to a reliable source, where anyone can go and verify the exchange (hence, no WP:OR problem). Both Colmes and Clark clearly found it noteworthy. We're not just saying that it was a controversial exchange. There was open, obvious criticism of Sliwa's comments by other notable figures. I'm not saying that the encyclopedic voice should say that "Sliwa said X, which is controversial." We can just report what was published and let the reader decide. I really don't think there is a problem here. Sliwa chose to go on the program, he chose to say what he said, and we can report that without any risk of wandering into libelous territory. We should certainly strive to maintain WP:NPOV, of course. Does my version above have obvious neutrality problems? DickClarkMises (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

For good reason the standard for negative info is even higher than the standard for non-negative info. It's also a good idea to apply Wikipedia:CITE#QUALIFY to clarify sources and attribute POV. If there's any reason to believe negative info is false, then my guidance is it's best to leave it out. Also, check out WP:SELFPUB for comment the subject makes himself. If there's a 1st and 2nd party, it may be ok. If the 1st is making comments about a 2nd in relation to a 3rd party, it may not be OK. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The exchange on Fox News wasn't self-published. It was published by a third party, Fox News. As you say, though, we should certainly be careful to attribute any controversial statement to the person who said it. DickClarkMises (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I should have provided a link to WP:WELLKNOWN. According to that section of BLP, an incident involving a public figure must also be notable, as well as relevant and well-documented by reliable third-party sources. My main point was that this incident was not noted by reliable sources, and therefore must be deemed non-notable. My secondary point was that the suggestion of hypocrisy was not relevant to the context of Sliwa's media career. - Unconventional (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about your reading of WP:WELLKNOWN. It starts with, In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. I don't see how inclusion of direct quotes, attributed to the respective speakers, goes beyond this. We aren't talking about obtaining testimony from the public record or something. We are talking about directly referring to something that was broadcast by a cable news channel. Could you directly quote the particular verbiage from the policy that seems to rule out or render questionable the inclusion of such material? DickClarkMises (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems clear to me. WELLKNOWN: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article...." Thus, if it fails any one of the tests of notability, relevance, and multiple documentation, it does not belong. For the reasons I gave above, I maintain that this incident fails all three of them.
You quoted the first sentence of WELLKNOWN, which says there will be many reliable third-party published sources and that WP biographies should do no more than document what they say. But then you immediately claimed that directly quoting the speakers in the video fits this prescription. Well, in the first place, the content at issue didn't quote anybody at all, either directly or indirectly. The closest thing it did to that was to say that "Sliwa advocated the use of violence", which is a summary of that part of the conversation (he talked about retaliation; they accused him of advocating violence; he agreed, but never said those words, so the disputed content is not in any sense a quote). Second, summarization is by definition original research. Third, this is only one source. I don't see how you can maintain that your claim justifies the disputed content, or that the disputed content conforms to the first sentence of WELLKNOWN.
In addition, it may be that the definition of a published source needs some consensus discussion. The primary reason sources must be published is so that they can be verified by our readers, but I think there was also an assumption by the writers of the policy that 'published' implied that the statements being made by the author had been considered and chosen carefully, so that they accurately reflected the beliefs and opinions of the author. For example, I don't see the encyclopedic value of quoting one of President Bush's many slips of the tongue as if it was exactly what he meant, even if it's well documented on YouTube or Fox. So I think that indeliberate, extemporaneous statements, even if 'published' in a recording, are of a less reliable nature than well thought out statements, and should be given less weight as evidence of the author's beliefs. This is especially true of BLP, where sources should be above doubt. But as I say, the policies are not so clear (AFAIK) on what 'published' means, so you may disagree. - Unconventional (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again everyone for the additional input on this discussion. I'm still opposed to including the quote, though I'm glad we seem to have consensus to avoid adding an interpretation to the quote. But I'm opposed to including it because I don't think it's exemplary of anything the article is trying to say already or that is sourced. Generally speaking, we can't include every quote of a notable figure, so we need to decide which quotes are encyclopedic. How do we do that? My point is that we shouldn't be synthesizing an opinion that the quote is controversial, unless secondary sources decide that it is controversial.

Quotes in my experience are useful when a view is established (by citations), as a way to put that view in the subject's or citation's own voice. But in this case, the quote was suggested for inclusion to make a point about Sliwa's view that is not presented in the article (aside perhaps that he's outspoken) nor backed up by any secondary citations demonstrating its noteworthiness. If we decide that it is noteworthy, but secondary sources do not, how is that not original research?

I'm not opposed to some leeway in what's included on general articles, we shouldn't have to find sources for every single statement in the wikipedia, but for living persons articles I think the bar should be higher, and any statement this is potentially critical of the living person more so. Those in my opinion need some guideline for what to include and what not to include and secondary sources seems to be the best measure for that as I read the policies. - Owlmonkey (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, removing RfC tag since it's been a week and many have been gracious enough to weigh in on the discussion. Thank you all. - Owlmonkey (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Attempted Murder

I rewrote this section, removed several errors and redundancies and added refs. Unless these people are convicted, the charges should not be stated as facts.Njsamizdat (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nestorian

It is odd that Sliwa was initially brought up as a Nestorian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.170.8 (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Height and weight?

These details are relevant given all of the "tough guy" talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.211.195.25 (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Why the phrasing "Failing Radio Career"?

This seems biased. Apparently it's only as of late Sliwa has experienced difficulties career-wise? Artie Lange has been fired and hired as a radio host several times, but it doesn't mean his career is "failing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.103.228.112 (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No mention of former wife?

Lisa Sliwa was famous in her own right, it seems like an odd omission.InsultComicDog 21:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal Life section has been updated for marriages, including Lisa.71.167.67.66 (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Brooklyn Preparatory School alumni?

The article places him in Category:Brooklyn Preparatory School alumni. As the article states, he was expelled, and did not graduate. Is he still an alumnus? TJRC (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems to depend on a school/college's policies. Most alums qualify as alums of most US institutions as long as they matriculate, even if they leave without a degree, regardless of the reason for the departure. Examples available on request. 71.167.67.66 (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

How Many Wives?

The box in the upper right of the article says that Sliwa has had two spouses (Evers and Galda) and one partner (Katz). However, in the article under "Personal Life" it says, "Sliwa has been married three times." 2604:2000:EFC0:2:8D4A:C930:569D:3926 (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent blurb on Sliwa

[1]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3427349/The-Guardian-Angels-New-York-crime-fighting-gang-head-subway-patrols-time-22-years-slew-slashing-attacks.html

hoople365.5Hoople365.5 (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ London Daily Mail

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Curtis Sliwa. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Curtis Sliwa. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Curtis Sliwa. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Curtis Sliwa. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Fordham Avenue garbage pick-up initiative

I was living in the Fordham neighborhood during part of 1978 and remember Curtis Sliwa mentioned in a discussion of a garbage pick-up initiative he organized previous to his forming the Guardian Angels. This might have been during his working as a McDonald's night manager.RichardBond (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Profile Image Update

Hi there, I just inserted a more current image of Mr. Sliwa speaking at an event this year. I wanted to update it as the previous image displayed him at a younger age, this photo was taken during his more recent activities running for mayor. If this photo was inserted or formatted-in incorrectly please let me know or feel free to correct it yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmeschter (talk • contribs) 00:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Parties missing from article

Why aren't the Independence Party and Animal Welfare Party mentioned in the current version of this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Bias in paragraph 3

Politics > Paragraph 3:

"Mateo believes the baseless claims that Trump won the 2020 presidential election"

Shouldn't the term "baseless" be considered bias, instead just saying "believes the claims" then removing the word baseless 89.19.88.121 (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Curtis_Sliwa/Archive_1&oldid=1205832164"