Talk:Daniel Squadron

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

Untitled[edit]

Information on this page was borrowed with permission by Jordan Levine, an aide to Senator Squadron, from his website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levinejo (talk • contribs) 16:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which parts were, and do you have a link? Dream Focus 01:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

District 25 to 26 and Schumer book[edit]

Why did he switch districts? Did he move? Anything about the book as most have never heard of it despite the senator's stature--69.2.120.11 (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Recent edits[edit]

Per WP:BOLD and a recent posting at BLPN I have reorganized the article and edited for WP:NPOV. I'm happy to discuss any issues or concerns here on the talk page. Regards, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate information being repeatedly posted[edit]

One or more individuals has been continuously adding inaccurate and misleading information to this entry, and undoing any attempts to correct the problem. Any help would be appreciated.

I expect this is the relevant edit? You removed well-sourced content and instead heavily cited his campaign website and his State Senate website while adding unduly promotional content ("leader in the fight" is appropriate for a campaign flyer, hardly for an encyclopedia). You may want to think about how that reflects on Mr. Squadron. If there is information you consider inaccurate, please be more specific. Huon (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Typical of a campaign not to want to sign off on their own complaints. Here is an example where Squadron did NOT vote progressively on a housing issue that was erased by the campaign.--96.224.241.205 (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and Coatrack tags[edit]

I've added some tags to the top of the article. The current state of the article is not a neutral presentation of the notable events in the subject's life. There are a variety of policy and guideline violations that need to be cleaned up in order to rebalance the article. I am happy to discuss them with others in order to develop a consensus for change and then removal of the tags. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section[edit]

Per WP:LEAD the lead section of the article should be a brief summary of the entire article. The paragraph about park politics is not even mentioned in the article and therefore its presence in the lead creates POV per WP:UNDUE. Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have been moved out of the lead and is a good start to cleaning up the POV edits but there are several more issues. I'll go through them one at a time. (see below)- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Bar[edit]

The current text in the Education section of the article is objectionable:

  • He is a graduate of Yale University and started a bar in New York called What, while still a junior. In addition to being underage, he and his partners were unaware of the city fire code when they opened their eventually successful establishment.

Because:

  • It cherry picks events and circumstances that misrepresent the source, for example:
    • The source says Squadron applied for the liquor license at age 20 but was 21yo when the license was granted
    • The current text ignores the main point of the source which is "They had no business experience, no bartending experience and no managing experience, and still they opened their doors one day, became “The Place To Be” the very next, and sold less than a year later for considerable profit." )[1]
  • The info is non-notable (it is only reported in a student newspaper and has received no main stream coverage--that I am aware of)
  • The cited source is a student paper "Most of our reporters are freshmen and sophomores, while the editorial board is mainly comprised of juniors." [2] and is not a reliable source for contentious BLP claims. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just nuked that whole section. No point whatsoever other than lulz (apparently). §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CorporateM has readded text about the What bar. Shall we discuss?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cupid section[edit]

I'm having trouble justifying the part where the subject and his wife were "set up" by someone else. Do we really need that? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd like to see both of these sentences removed from that section, as they are non-notable and off-topic:
    • They were set up by Schumer and his wife, Iris Weinshall, for whom Weinstein worked as chief of staff at the New York City Department of Transportation
    • The Squadron family was an early investor in Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme. Nevermind I've already revised this section on Madoff using the sources as a guide.

Thoughts? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the offensive sentence has been removed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was reworded quite well. Good job. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think CorporateM did the rewording so credit goes to him.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brought it back. Notable that people in power are setting people up, and that these people in turn gain power. Current edit also made it sound like Elizabeth worked for Chuck, WHEN SHE WORKED FOR IRIS.--108.30.93.184 (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firing of employee[edit]

The article says:

  • On February 26, 2013 Squadron fired a campaign consultant by phone, allegedly when she was in mourning for the death of her father. The consultant in turn donated to his rivals Reshma Saujani and Letitia James and released her final email to Squadron to the press.

The source is marginal. [3] and WP:BLP says:

  • contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

In my opinion this info is non-notable and because it is controversial, and has been reported only by a marginal source, it should be removed per the policy quote above. Any thoughts on this?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the text down to one sentence. I'm still not sure its notable though. Should it be removed? Should we get opinions at BLPN?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You really do enjoy having conversations with yourself, Keith, huh.--108.30.93.184 (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original research?[edit]

The article says:

  1. One source is the dad's obit which says he was survived by a son named Bill [4]
  2. The other source is the corporate bio of Bill Squadron [5]

Neither source says 'oldest brother' and it's possible there could be more than one Bill Squadron. I say remove. Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If no one objects, I'm going to remove this.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I object and am putting it back in. The profile of Bill Squadron shows his face. THIS article shows Daniel's face. THEY LOOK ALIKE, HELLO. Also no other Bill Squadron in NYC metro area, I checked. --108.30.93.184 (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

part 2[edit]

The article says: "Squadron generally votes in favor of progressive issues". And then lists a bunch of primary sources (press release, voting results on state bills etc.)

  • "Squadron Announces Senate Passage Of Bill To Make Mitchell-Lama Housing More Accessible | New York State Senate". Nysenate.gov. Retrieved September 29, 2013.
  • "Squadron, Kavanagh, Quinn, Tenants Rally For Rent Guidelines Board Reform Ahead Of Annual Vote | New York State Senate". Nysenate.gov. April 16, 2012. Retrieved September 29, 2013.
  • "Squadron Provision to Close Renovation Loophole Part of Extension of Rent Regulations | New York State Senate". Nysenate.gov. June 24, 2011. Retrieved September 29, 2013.
  • "A 8446 – Extension of Rent Control Laws – Key Vote". Project Vote Smart.

Seems to me it should be removed. Thoughts?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If no one objects, I'm going to remove this.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that these would be primary sources though, the primary source would be the bill(s) themselves. On the other hand I have no idea how objective the source is, and whether it would be OR to claim these are progressive issues. So it's probably better to remove them until a secondary source can be found the characterizes the voting in a particular way. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most editors consider press releases to be primary sources. It's also an original synthesis problem, unless the source identifies the trend explicitly. Technically they could be used to show his voting record for each bill individually, without the analysis, but then there are probably a large number of things he has voted on and there would be an NPOV problem with using press releases that may not be representative. Deleting it is probably the best thing to do, under the hopes that some analysis of his voting patterns may be found in a strong secondary source at some point. CorporateM (Talk) 22:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK I"ve removed it.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

Does this link 2009 New York State Senate leadership crisis belong in the see also section? It does not mention Squadron. Should it be included just because he is a NY state senator? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say remove it. Not every state senator should have a "see also" link to that crisis; if Squadron isn't mentioned, there's no advantage to the reader. Huon (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've removed it, thanks.  Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book[edit]

The book in question lists him unequivocally as one of its authors ... even though I don't see his name on the cover. From what I can see, it is appropriate to restore the reflection of that, rather than water it down.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epeefleche, Amazon lists Schumer as author [6] However, I saw one source that said "with Daniel Squadron" but I can't find it just now. Page 287 of the book refers to Squadron as one of the authors per your Google link. What do other editors think? How shall we handle this?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added him as co-author. If others disagree, we can discuss further.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree and changed. I'm glad you at least waited on this one, Keith. Oh and "I saw one source" is pretty laughable for someone who has been vetting the references so hard on this article--108.30.93.184 (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-author implies one of two. One of the authors is okay, but co-author, no, unless we get some other kind of backup. A statement from Schumer basically, as Squadron said all manner of things during the election.--71.167.166.249 (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag removed[edit]

Thank you User:FreeRangeFrog, User:CorporateM and others for helping to clean up this article. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Father's firm,etc.[edit]

I recall seeing mention of his father's firm's name. That's relevant to the article, as it is a known firm, and he was lead name partner. Did someone perhaps delete it in error? It should IMHO be restored. In addition, whatever is in the lede should be in the body, as the lede is a summary thereof (e.g., Fieldston). Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not an error. This page is trolled by Squadron supporters. Please keep your eye on this article as will I.--108.30.93.184 (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and I'm inclined to bring back info about his mom too, since she's got material in the press as well. It's of interest that she's Howard's second wife as well, and that Daniel's the baby of the family.--71.167.166.249 (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel as youngest[edit]

This establishes Daniel as the youngest, okay? Name and town attributes are NOT given to people younger than college age. End of story. THINK for Chrissakes.--71.167.166.249 (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Daniel Squadron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Daniel Squadron. 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) 09:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Squadron&oldid=1201518274"