Talk:John Faso

Untitled

It is demonstrably false that John Faso is a lobbyist at Manatt. Check their website, www.manatt.com. No John Faso. According to his NYS Attorney Registration, he is self-employed at the Law Offices of John Faso, P.C. It is also disingenuous of certain editors to insist on including references to the 2010 AG allegations without reference to articles indicating that Faso was not accused of wrongdoing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by History518 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

User History518, you appear to be entirely new, so you may not have read relevant Wikipedia policies yet. Please find secondary sources for the information you claim. Wikipedia has a policy of "No Original Research", which means, briefly, that you should not be claiming that someone is or is not employed somewhere based on your access of some proprietary database. Again, you must find reliable, secondary sources for all claims. You have made numerous mass deletions without explanation in concert with two other users ; please justify those. Additionally, specify any personal relationship or acquaintance you have with the subject of this piece.Frankam12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I boldly struck some fluff off this piece. Still, there is no criticism from anyone of Faso in the article. Is "no criticism" likely during an election? The article on Eliot Spitzer has often had such nasty crap in it("Jewboy", even!)and previously such a negative tone and this article is so positive that I think it has put Wikipedia on Faso's side of the election. (Just look at versions of the Spitzer article from previous months.) Rich 09:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite of explanations about my article edits of July 21 2006: There was a server crash or something and the following explanation was erased.) I changed some verb tenses. Probably this article had an update where what had been present tense should have been changed to past tense at the time of the update. Also, I removed stuff about the 1995 budget and how great it was, which was presumably due to the work and negotiations of many people besides Faso, unless other evidence is provided, so the stuff doesn't belong in the article, at least as presented. Also I cut wordiness and tried to make the article more like a report rather than Faso's resume.Rich 08:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The current (9/19/06) version of this article is odd. Shouldn't the section on the 2006 governor's race mention that he's running against Eliot Spitzer?130.86.14.88 05:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If Faso really was born in 1964 as the article states, then he was only 15 years old when he graduated from law school in 1979. Either Faso is some kind of legal Doogie Howser, or his birth year is wrong. Would someone please correct this obvious erroneous information? Thank you! 172.138.20.9 21:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I just changed it to 1952 from a website i found. Thanks for pointing this out--it's surprising the error was ever made, considering the early versions of the article sounded like they were written by John Faso campaign staffers.Rich 07:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

COI Editing

@Geves08: please disclose any personal relationship or acquaintance with Mr. Faso. You are edit warring and have contributed a close up photo of Faso, attributed to your "own work." SPECIFICO talk 16:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: The photo of Mr. Faso is from his Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/johnfasony/photos/a.652757594824272.1073741826.652670644832967/754030618030302/?type=1&theater)[User:Geves08 | SPECIFICO]] talk 16:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Geves08: Are you the holder of the intellectual property of this photo? If you have uploaded it to Wikipedia without reading the Creative Commons licensing, here:

1. [1] be aware that lifting a photo from Facebook and uploading it without permission is likely copyright infringement and you must revert your edit. Additionally, please specify any relationship or acquaintance you have with Mr. Faso. Frankam12 (talk)

What's the justification for having a COI tag on this page? No user has disclosed a COI as far as I can tell. A user seemed to make a WP:COPYVIO error by lifting a photo from Facebook, but anyone can do that--it doesn't require a COI. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@ChampaignSupernova: Please see the WP:COI page as it relates to copyright issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Copyright

There are clear guidelines here that affect WP:COI and WP:COPYVIO. If you want to change the templates, go ahead and add a copyright violation message. Please don't remove anything until all this has been sorted out and any edits are in compliance with the policy. Namely, "If editors choose to add material to an article on behalf of a COI or paid editor, they must provide attribution for the text in the edit summary. The edit summary should include the name of the COI or paid editor, a link to the draft or edit request, and that the edit contains a COI or paid contribution. For example: "Text inserted on behalf of paid editor User:X; copied from Draft:Paid draft." In addition to complying with copyright requirements, this transparency allows editors and readers to determine the extent of COI input into the article." User@Geves08: has yet to address the COI issue brought up by @SPECIFICO:; please avoid making changes until this is cleared up directly by the user. Frankam12 (talk)

The WP:COI guidelines are only relevant if an editor is a COI editor. Do you have evidence that COI editing has occurred? If so, take it up at WP:COIN. But taking a photo from a candidate's Facebook page isn't evidence of COI. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

As the WP:COIN guidelines indicate, issues are to be discussed on the talk page before escalating to that point. I look forward to continuing this discussion with the user involved. Until then, please avoid removing the templace.Frankam12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, the user in question clearly isn't participating in this discussion, so that's not going to get us anywhere. If you want to push a COI issue, bring it to WP:COIN. But the article tag doesn't make sense to me, especially since several editors, including myself, have made numerous intervening edits. Rather than slapping the article with a COI tag, why not tag or address any content you think is problematic or the result of COI? Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the COI template/tag, for exactly the reason that Champaign Supernova has stated - there have been a lot of intervening edits, and I personally think that the article is now reasonably well written - not perfect, but pretty good. It's time to stop arguing about COI and to focus on specific content (in a new, separate section, below, please, not here). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing

A campaign statement, even if quoted in a blog post or news article, does not constitute WP:RS. Multiple third-party news sources, as the ones you have removed (the Daily News, Politico, etc), are much better indications of reliable sourcing. Please review sources 2, and 21-23 and find reliable secondary sources to support your claims instead. Additionally, these should not be primary sources such as research databases or campaign websites, but reliable secondary sources, which

Additionally, please justify your mass deletion numerous times of what appears to be well-sourced information on this page without explanation. Please go point by point.

You appear to be a relatively new user, so you may not be familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies, since you have broken several of them (WP:CC BY-SA, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, WP:EW) Please review WP:PG before making any further edits. Frankam12 (talk)

@John Broughton: Thanks for doing some cleanup. Question about your last edit: do you think a campaign website falls into the WP:RS category, esp. for an active politician? I tend to think not, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Frankam12 (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Frankam12: Sure, you're welcome. Regarding your question, it's true that campaign websites fail the WP:RS test, and so, in most cases shouldn't be used as a source. However, it's normal for biographies of individuals - whether on a college website, in a press release, or a campaign website, almost always written by the individual - to be used for minor, fairly neutral information. Typically that would be family background, early childhood, or religion - things that are left out of anything but the longest of news articles, and thus for most politicians simply aren't available elsewhere. Again, this is relatively minor, fairly neutral information, and it has to be evaluated with WP:UNDUE in mind - going on at length about a candidate's paper route and merit badges earned as a Boy Scout [I exaggerate, a little] clearly fails WP:UNDUE, and should be cut back sharply or removed entirely.

In short, there are not absolute rules that cover all possible situations. I tend to ask myself "Is this something that the reader would find useful to know, is purely factual, and which doesn't take up much space", when deciding whether to object to something from a candidate's biography. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

RELIABLE SOURCE??

QUESTION: Does anyone know if fivethirtyeight.com is a reliable non-partisan source? Quis separabit? 20:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC) YES - very legit, as long as you consider NY Times and ESPN legit. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight for history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klkl3000 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Klkl3000 -- Well I am not sure about the New York Times. I have heard they are biased. Quis separabit? 22:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC) @Rms125a@hotmail.com LOL. Yes. Everything is fake news except what we can agree on in wikiland.

Sponging @Tendcozen

@Tendcozen Please - we have people from both 'sides' working on this page (@Rms125a@hotmail.com is most likely a Faso supporter but makes reasonable edits, that follow Wiki standards) - Do not sponge, or attempt to hide information by providing external links, or removing a description of a bill and replacing it with just a number. A wiki about a politician is going to have some stuff his supporters like and stuff his opponents like, all of it well sourced and facts (unless the politician was born a week ago and has no history) - that's just the way it goes when you have a story and a past. I see this is the only page you edit and are a new user - do you work directly for John Faso? If so - I'd suggest adding to the positive stuff about his history (if it's notable and well sourced) instead of just trying to delete the negative. the internet is a hard place to hide things.

Uh, if there are people from "both sides", why am I the only one mentioned by name? Quis separabit? 17:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC) (@Rms125a@hotmail.com - Your the only one mentioned because a lot of the other earlier editors pushing from the right seem to create an account and then disappear after a few edits - and you are a good editor, so I thought I'd hold you up as example of across the aisle editing - sorry for the call out.

@Klkl3000 Oh, thanks for the compliment. It's fine. Now I understand. Quis separabit? 02:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Anyway, How is this a "SYNTH unsourced juxtaposition of text"? Detractors claim he won't meet with constituents -- usually code for protesters -- yet there is an image (and I did not upload it) showing him talking to his constituents (presumably they are his constituents or he should asked but that's a slightly different issue). Quis separabit? 17:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello. The words about him meeting with constituents are your inference from your inspection of a photo, and are not juxtaposed in the cited Reliable Source with the other information. This is OR and SYNTH to lead the reader to a conclusion that's not in the cited source. If you have RS that discusses his meetings with constituents, by all means those would not be OR. You'll note that I also removed the pointedly POV caption to the other photo in which Faso's finger is extended and some editor apparently inferred that he was engaged in hostile interaction with a constituent. These American Politics articles go off the rails unless we are very strict about sourcing and NPOV. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICO talk 17:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC) I took the photo of Faso and the constituent - I've switched the langaute to "In conversation" - hopefully that works for you all. I can confirm the identiy of the person he's speaking with (she does live in NY -19) - but I'm not sure that makes sense to have her name public on this page if she's just being labeled as a "constituent"

(@Rms125a@hotmail.com - Here is the direct quote from the NY Times - "After law school, Mr. Faso took county and state political jobs in Washington, but all the while he was thinking about a run for elective office in New York. In 1983, the Fasos bought a fixer-upper in Kinderhook, in Columbia County outside Albany, purposely choosing a district of a longtime assemblyman, Larry Lane, whom Mr. Faso wanted to replace. He did estate and real estate work at Rapport, Meyers, and soon enough, in 1986 the Assembly seat came open"  The way it's described in the wiki article does not shift the tone, or add partisan language to the source.  http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/nyregion/18faso.html?_r=3

@SPECIFICO @Morphdog @KNHaw Thank you all for you reversions in the past 24 hours - @Tendcozen's sponging continues and they won't discuss things on this talk page. Can anything be done to automate the anti-sponging reversions or provide some other protections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klkl3000 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Blanking into about the protests / town halls

(@Rms125a@hotmail.com 

As it says in ANI - the protest issue isn’t going away. A large portion of local and national news sources have covered the protesters and it is a notable issue for Congressman of this time (much of the national press about the protests has showed images of Faso and the protesters). It is clearly part of the story of Faso's first term. The current entry has Faso’s quote included and I believe it is written in neutral language. If you want to make edits to the language - lets work on it together to clear any bias - but I do not believe continuing to blanking the section is editing in good faith. (not wiki related - but on a strategic point from the right, way would you try and dismiss the protests? in many ways it makes Faso look sympathetic to moderates as he has to deal with all this other stuff that previous representatives have not had to). comment added by Klkl3000 (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Massive Content Removal

I've removed about 6kb of data with this edit and so naturally I should explain myself. The section lists a number of issues that only someone of a specific political persuasion would find controversial and "notable". All of the issues listed are specifically opposed to the Democratic party's platforms and written like it. For instance, the list includes that the BLP co-sponsored a bill to allow people to carry a firearm in a school zone. They use a primary source to back up this claim. What's striking is that the bill is actually to support reciprocity between the states. That's its primary purpose, but that isn't mentioned. The mention was specifically slanted to cause the reader to become emotional about the issue and oppose the BLP. In addition, it lists several rules meant to undo protections. Again, the way this is written is to convey that this is an evil man trying to destroy the world and remove the barriers in his way. Each one of the issues listed are issues that are meant to tarnish the BLP's reputation. That's not the purpose of Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 02:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

All this primary sourced stuff can't be inserted in a BLP without some indication that it's significant. It might be suitable for an after-article section of votes on noteworthy legislation, similar to a list of books published or external links, but primary sourcing is always going to be a problem in a BLP. SPECIFICO talk 03:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Primary sourcing is an issue, but also if we're going to have a "noteworthy list" then we need a RS that lists these issues as noteworthy. It cannot be a Wikipedian's self-selection of what they find noteworthy. That's WP:OR.--v/r - TP 12:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

That's right. Also the list should not have been reinserted, since TP has clearly stated the issue here on talk. SPECIFICO talk 12:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

How and where would an after-article section be inserted? Instead of a full blanking though -why not work to provide a right leaning perspective to each point so we can find middle ground; these are all factually correct - what the primary function of a bill can be debated and worked out. It is difficult to find highlighted voting records in one spot - and having the votes be part of this article would be useful to many people. User talk:Klkl3000

Absolutely not. 1) There is no RS that labels these specifically as "noteworthy" worth a list. That's complete WP:OR and a WP:BLP violation. 2) The list uses primary sources. 3) The list is selectively chosen to portray the BLP subject negatively. Another BLP violation. Seriously, anyone defending this list is lucky they aren't warned of the American Politics Arb case right now.--v/r - TP 00:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on John Faso. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/nyregion/18faso.html?_r=3
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60616FB355B0C768CDDAF0894DD494D81
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061219232817/http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/32297p-30622c.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/32297p-30622c.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/nyregion/01gov.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/nyregion/24gov.html?pagewanted=print

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) 17:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

"The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)" vs "Obamacare"

One user wants to change "the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)" into "Obamacare" under the rationale "Using everyday terms so the section is understandable to the average person". I don't think there is much to this rationale: using the formal name of the legislation AND the nickname makes it so that the average person knows what is being repealed while maintaining accuracy. Obamacare is not the formal name of the legislation. Furthermore, there are reasons to believe that some people believe that "the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" and "Obamacare" are not the same things[2], so using one term (as opposed to both) could contribute to misunderstanding. Using "the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)" therefore achieves greater accuracy and comprehension, whereas merely using "Obamacare" achieves less accuracy and comprehension. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Faso critiques of Delgado's rap career

Marquardtika and I seem to be misunderstanding each other somehow. Marquardtika is concerned about the NY Times source critiquing Faso for being unsigned. It is signed as coming from the editorial board of the NY Times. This doesn't make it correct, but I think it should be included since this is a substantial critique and part of a more broadly reported controversy. We also seem to have some differences in understanding about what is a critique of the campaign advert and what is a critique of Faso. Faso has made statements about this issue and has been directly critiqued by the NY Times and others for this. Seems notable and worth including. - Dan Eisenberg (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The content should be covered in some way, as it has received RS coverage[3]. Propose your preferred wording. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

See below. I am, of course, open to improvements.

During the campaign, the National Republican Congressional Committee ran an advertisement criticizing Delgado for his previous career as a rapper. Faso called some of Delgado's rap lyrics "very troubling and offensive", saying they "paint an ugly and false picture of America." Delgado, who, if elected, would become the first nonwhite person to represent New York's 19th district, has said the criticism of his rap lyrics is an an attempt to "otherize" him. The The New York Times editorial board accused strongly criticized Faso for what they termed a "cynical campaign of race-baiting" Eighteen clergy members from the district also called on Faso to retract his statements.

References

@Dan Eisenberg: please familiarize yourself with WP:BRD. You added content to an article and it has been removed by two different editors, but you keep re-adding it. You shouldn't re-add any content until WP:CONSENSUS has been achieved on this page. Otherwise, you are are edit warring. As for your proposed edits, they are missing a big piece of context--it says Faso criticized Delgado's rap lyrics, but it doesn't say why. Sources say the lyrics include "references to drug use and sexual encounters. Others use the “N” word, criticize “dead presidents” as “white supremacists,” and compare the response to New Orleans after Katrina to 9/11" and that Delgado "rapped about sex, used the n-word, and called former presidents white supremacist." It's confusing and incomplete to discuss these events without saying what started the controversy in the first place. Then take a look at WP:NEWSORG to see that opinion editorials aren't generally considered to be reliable sources. In general, we need secondary news accounts/reporting that has been fact-checked. Then there is some confusing grammar happening with "The The New York Times editorial board accused strongly criticized..." We need to be mindful of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, and especially WP:NPOV when it comes to articles on candidates for political office. Every political candidate has supporters and opponents and advertisements for and against. Just because something is covered in reliable sources doesn't make it encyclopedic in the long run. In general tit-for-tat "he said she said" political campaign talking points make for poor long term content here. Marquardtika (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a preferred wording of the content? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

This was my version. I'm not convinced we should be covering this at all though, because there is a runaway issue with adding newsy items to political candidate pages. Just because something is covered in RS doesn't mean it is of enduring encyclopedic value. Political ads are a dime a dozen. Marquardtika (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Glad we seem to be reaching some agreement here (e.g. that Faso himself was being criticized, not just the advertisement as a previous edit summary claimed). I reverted the previous edit because the explanation in the edit summary was off base for reasons I have described above, in my edit summary, and elaborate on her. Of course, elaborating on what Faso was criticizing is reasonable. I am not using the NYT as a source of factual claim--instead the backlash which Faso's remarkes created are newsworthy--i.e. clergy and the NYT editorial board coming out strong against Faso. It's like we might cover the endorsements of an editorial board--doesn't make them factual or right, but the fact that an editorial board has made such a strong statement is of merit (this is clearly covered in WP:NEWSORG). Of course I also welcome grammatical improvements like of the typo pointed out above. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

And this continues to be an issue and covered in the news. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/nyregion/antonio-delgado-rapper.html https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/7/18/17583044/antonio-delgado-congress-rap-new-york-john-faso-campaign-ads https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/12/nrcc-faces-backlash-over-attack-ad-against-democratic-candidate-former-rapper-antonio-delgado/?utm_term=.8b972c6c39f7 . Getting more and more tendentious to not be including this. It's been regularly in the news and a persitant issue from July to October. -16:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Eisenberg (talk • contribs)

I support adding text on this. I support Eisenberg's version, but I would trim the criticism that Faso faced and completely drop the criticism by random clergy (you can find people who support and oppose everything, and we can't and shouldn't cover it on Wikipedia). I would perhaps reword it as "Faso's criticism of Faso's career as a rapper stirred controversy, with the New York Times editorial board saying it amounted to a "cynical campaign of race-baiting". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I support that wording. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Reliable source for committee assignments

Many articles for members of Congress have a subsection for committees assigned to the member in the last Congress they have served in. This one doesn't, and I feel like that should be fixed - but all House websites for retiring members have now been taken down (at least, I checked a few yesterday...). Is there a good source for this information? Airbornemihir (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)