Talk:Independent Democratic Conference

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

this needs to be hashed out[edit]

Maybe this is the best place to do it rather than over the course of several page edit notes/talks/user talks. Can we have a discussion about the constant disagreements on what the IDC is/what it backs? I see a consistent effort by some to indicate it votes for Republican leaders rather than supports and other problems such as these. It might just be best to come to some sort of understanding on this issue. Due to a potential tangential COI I will refrain from edits, but I think it might be constructive to talk. Spelf (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fixes to lede[edit]

I have made several edits to the lede that I would like to explain here.

  • Changed "is" to "was." The IDC has been dissolved, so the past tense is appropriate.
  • I removed a reference to the number of members of the IDC, as its membership fluctuated between four and eight throughout its existence.
  • I removed language about the IDC and Republicans forming a coalition to give the Republicans the Senate majority. This unsourced language was only accurate during the 2013-2014 legislative session.
  • I removed language about the IDC "support[ing] the Republican leadership once elected." Members of the IDC did not always vote for a Republican as Senate Majority Leader, so the statement isn't fully accurate and is unsourced as well. SunCrow (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Independent Democratic Conference/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 17:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this one. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, thanks! – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: I've made one run through; pinging you rather than putting on hold because you're active at the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93, I'll take a look later. I'm out and on my phone, which is not the best for substantive editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: are you all done? Vanamonde (Talk) 23:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93, no, not yet. There's another deep dove I want to do in the news archives. I may get to it tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93, actually, I think it's ready for re-review. I can still look for more info for the last bullet point of the review, tying it to the 2009 leadership crisis. I didn't have the time to do that at lunch today, but will try to tonight or tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just took another look at it. While I trust you, personally, to make the fixes, for the sake of the process I'm going to wait for you to add some stuff. Here's the thing; so far as I can tell, the sources you've got for the background don't have anything about the IDC in them, and the sources about the IDC that I spot-checked don't make the connection. We need sources to make the connection, otherwise it's verging on inappropriate synthesis. So I'll let you get to it, and perhaps you can ping me when you're done. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93, you definitely shouldn't pass the GA before I've dealt with this. Nor was I suggesting you should, I think the rest is ready. I'm looking for sourcing that connects the two, because you're right, otherwise it's synthesis. There is some: [1][2][3] I hadn't realized that the leadership crisis group was known as the "four amigos". That makes searching for more easier. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, you meant "look through my responses" and I thought you meant "finish this up". No worries. I've looked through some, I'll do the rest later. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93, yes, sorry for the confusion. I hope to finish this on my end today. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still reading sources when I have the time, and thinking about how best to integrate them. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sentence on the comparison.[4] I could probably add more if you think I should. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think more detail couldn't hurt; I was spotchecking ref 3 and found it made some comments about Klein's loyalty that linked the incidents; but I don't think I need to hold this up any more, because its relevance has been established. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the review! I'll be sure to add more as I continue to read the sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    All comments addressed.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    All comments addressed
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig's tool clear (it flags someone who is obviously copying Wikipedia), spotchecks clear
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Image licensing checks out to the best of my abilities.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    No issues.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Passing shortly

Comments[edit]

  • "In the new session, Espada and Monserrate voted against Smith as Majority Leader. Monserrate rejoined the Democrats" a little confusing; it would help to explain that every senate needed to elect a majority leader to run senate business (or whatever).
  • I'd suggest "Monserrate later rejoined the Democrats" for flow
  • Adding the resolution of the leadership crisis would clarify that section a little.
  • Second sentence of the next paragraph; try to avoid repeating "2010 elections"
  • Readers outside the US are going to be baffled by the "independent caucus" business; a brief explanation (group which operated independently from the Democratic Senate leadership" or something) and a link would be helpful.
    • "I linked it to Congressional caucus, which should help explain it. However, the article is mostly focused on the US Congress. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sampson offered the IDC members minor roles on committees, and Klein reached out to Dean Skelos" The "and" here seems to connect two unrelated things; am I correct in thinking Sampson was trying to entice them back, and that Klein reached out to Skelos because he was dissatisfied with the offer? If so, some clarification may be necessary.
    • I rewrote this part. Your interpretation was correct. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Democratic senators, including Ruth Hassell-Thompson, criticized Klein for leaving the campaign committee in debt and for allegedly following his own personal ambitions" This seems to be personal criticism of Klein, and not especially relevant to the caucus; why is it here?
  • " the IDC and the Senate Republicans to "jointly decide ..." something grammatically off.
    • It was missing the word "agreed" – Muboshgu (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an unfortunate tendency in articles about US politics to follow media convention and use "Senator" or "President" as a prefix for an individual every time they are mentioned. WP:HONORIFIC suggests that individuals be identified in full at first use, and only by their last names thereafter; I'd add that where the office is patently obvious it shouldn't be mentioned. I've fixed one instance, check for others; and definitely don't use the abbreviation.
  • "secure the Republican line" I'm unsure what this means
  • "Smith was later found to have involved" grammatically off...
  • Is "November 2014 elections" supposed to be a redlink?
    • We really should have an article on that. Maybe I'll start it soon. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wiretapped conversation was aired" this sentence implies the conversation was with Klein; if this isn't true, some rewording may be necessary
  • Felder's letter is...strange, because he doesn't seem to rejoin the Democrats afterwards. And if he's in the government, why is he advocating for his allies to join the opposition? Is there more detail available?
    • I failed to include that he's a Democrat caucusing with Republicans, though not an IDC member. I streamlined the Felder content in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Calls for reunification" and "Dissolution" suffer from some WP:PROSELINE problems. I'd suggest restructuring the first sentences of those paragraphs.
  • Where does the term "lulus" come from? Is it commonly used in the sources? If not, I'd suggest dropping it; its ridiculousness is distracting.
    • I have no idea, didn't notice it before. It's out. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, most of the six defeated senators suspended their reelection campaigns after the primary election" This is very confusing; weren't they running in the Democratic primary? And if they suspended their campaigns after it, what were they doing on a third party ballot?
    • New York state has electoral fusion, which is mentioned and linked in "2018 State Senate elections", first sentence of the second paragraph. Basically, in NY state, you can be the nominee of as many parties as will nominate you, and all the votes (regardless of party line [which incidentally should help explain the "Republican line" comment about Malcolm Smith in the 2013 mayoral election]) are added up for the final total vote. The paragraph mentions which third parties nominated the IDC members, meaning they were still on the 2018 ballot. (Incidentally, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defeated Joe Crowley in the 2018 Democratic primary election, but Crowley still appeared on the 2018 ballot for other parties.) It's confusing to outsiders (I'm a born and raised New Yorker so it makes perfect sense to me) so if it's not clear enough, let me know. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the caucus no longer exists, I find the members vs former members distinction strange. I'd recommend combining those sections, and also adding years of membership to all the others.
  • The second lead sentence implies that Klein wasn't a senator; also "leader" shouldn't be capitalized. I'd suggest something like "Led by [Klein], the group of eight senators included..."
    • Fixed? But now the lead doesn't mention that Klein lead the group. I may need to fix that issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is stuff about the group's ideology in the infobox that isn't in the body. If there's sourcing, it should be; otherwise, remove it from the infobox.
    • I don't know that I can find reliable sources that pin down the group's "ideology", so I took it out. If I see anything solid, I'll find a way to integrate it. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, positions within the caucus in the infobox aren't sourced.
    • It's in the "Members" section. But, the source is for the "current" leadership, so I'll have to find a new one. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Found it – Muboshgu (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "subsequent September 13, 2018 Democratic primaries" I'd say this is too much detail for the lead; I'd recommend "subsequent Democratic primaries in September 2018,"
  • Having read through the whole thing twice, I'm not seeing the relevance of the first paragraph in the "background" section...is there more detail you could provide? Specifically, commentary on the motivations of the main actors?
    • Klein's involvement in the 2009 leadership crisis is relevant to IDC, I think. Also it's more context on the dysfunction of the NY Senate. I can expand on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lede changes Feb 20[edit]

The current page is too confusing. Most people would not get the point - that they were Republicans that pretended to be Democrats for the purpose of winning the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Champben2002 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were undone and your comment here is very non-neutral and your argument not factual. The article is clear as it is, in fact, it's considered one of the better articles on WP given the above conversation and the Good Article status. JesseRafe (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Independent_Democratic_Conference&oldid=1207097052"