Talk:Adam Giambrone

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

Gay[edit]

How come it does not state anywhere in the article that Adam Giambrone is openly gay?99.248.151.13 (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no actual media sources that can be cited for it. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I read other celebrities' personal information, not every single fact about that person is sourced. Why does this have to be? 99.248.151.13 (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP. Like it or not, sexuality is still a loaded enough topic in today's society that we have to be much stricter about sourcing it properly than is required for some other details — it's the kind of thing we can get sued over if we get it wrong or if we out somebody who was in the closet, so we have to have a blanket "give an airtight source for it or don't mention it at all" rule. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another, more logical reason is that, in fact, he isn't gay.--Abebenjoe (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He clarified in a recent interview that he is not gay, which should settle this issue http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/744841--giambrone-laughs-over-outing-in-magazineSteve Joseph (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, eh? Precisely why we can't add it to articles on mere presumptions of "common knowledge". Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Affair[edit]

Could someone edit this into the article? It contains very significant revelations which could impact Toronto's mayoral elections. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontomayoralrace/article/762532--adam-giambrone-says-sorry-for-affair-with-young-woman?bn=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.124.152 (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restriction[edit]

Why is this article being placed under protected mode? Is there a substantial reason for doing so, or is this some biased view influenced by the person in question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kromagg (talk • contribs) 16:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this is the post that I made to the talk page of User:Rider11011, the user whose edits necessitated the current state of protection:
What needs to be made very clear here is that Wikipedia is not a place for editorializing. A neutrally worded discussion of the criticism that his video has faced would be perfectly appropriate and acceptable content in the article. But what you were adding was not a neutral and objective summary.
For starters, the article should have (and now does) a distinct subsection specifically for his mayoral campaign — the fact that some people made fun of his campaign video is not the kind of thing that belongs in the article's introduction, as if it were one of the most basic biographical facts about him which belonged right next to his birthdate and the fact that he's Italian and the fact that he has a university degree in archaeology. We have a policy about not giving things undue weight — criticism of the video, while certainly relevant overall, is not the kind of thing that belongs right in the article's introduction.
Secondly, whatever you or I may think of the video as individuals, it's not Wikipedia's place to express an opinion about it — we can only describe the video and the tenor of reaction to it. And we don't really care that some teenagers on YouTube posted parodies, either — as an encyclopedia, we care about what notable people (electoral opponents, political pundits, etc.) say about it in media of record, not about ephemeral internet memes.
And finally, the fact that a handful of people protested outside his campaign launch isn't particularly notable in and of itself. That kind of thing has happened to a lot of politicians, both on the left and the right, who inspire strong reactions in people — both Barack Obama and George W. Bush have faced it, for example — and it just doesn't really matter that much in the grand scheme of things. There's really no need to make special note of a few people carrying signs outside the bar just to prove that he's not universally popular — no politician in all of human history ever has been, and any remotely intelligent reader already knows that.
Again, to clarify, I'm not in any way opposed to the article discussing the matter in a neutral way. I've added a more neutral discussion of his campaign controversies to the appropriate subsection. But your edits appear motivated by the desire to get up on a soapbox and portray Giambrone in the most negative and unflattering light possible, not by the desire to contribute in an objective manner to an encyclopedia, and that isn't acceptable on here. You're free to hold your own opinions about whether or not Giambrone is a credible candidate for mayor — but it's not Wikipedia's role to make pronouncements on that one way or the other.
For the record, I am not associated with Giambrone's campaign in any way. I hope that clarifies the current matter. Bearcat (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, if the page must remain locked could you do me the favour of making a more detailed entry on the mayoral race section? The information provided on the entry currently lacks the revelation following Lucas's allegations: that Giambrone has publicly admitted to and apologized for his affair with Lucas. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontomayoralrace/article/762532 I understand not including the full extent of Lucas's allegations: that they had sex in his city hall office, that his public relationship was a facade, or that he had prematurely revealed that a fare hike would be imposed- all of these are allegations which have not been verified or denied. But I do think that his public acceptance of the affair is vital as it elevates the most substantive element of her statements, that she and Giambrone had an affair, from allegation to fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.124.152 (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section certainly will be added to and expanded upon. The only thing I do want to stress is that Wikipedia is not the media; our role here is to get it right in the long term, not to be the first one out of the starting gate with every salacious little detail of a potential scandal. Every time any politician (Michael Bryant, Eliot Spitzer, etc.) faces something even remotely controversial or potentially damaging, we get a flood of anonymous editors who suddenly swarm that person's article and try to use it as a soapbox instead of an encyclopedia. But as an encyclopedia, we're governed by policies such as WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:RS. Including such information properly is more important here than including it right away — our job is to do it right, not necessarily to do it immediately. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That makes complete sense and I understand. Just to clarify, though: Giambrone has addressed this himself in an article which preceded the one you cited. Indeed, Giambrone's statement was issued in the very same article which broke the allegation (the one I have cited). I also agree that salacious details are not necessarily relevant details. However, I would like to ask- at what point do they become relevant? For example, while it does not seem particularly relevant that Giambrone and Lucas had sex on a couch, it may in fact be relevant that the couch was located in his office (I do not think so personally)- it can carry a message of abuse of his power or of his office that resonates with the electorate. This very effect occurred when it was revealed that Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky carried out sexual acts in the Oval Office. Indeed the detail was obscene and lustful, but it turned out to be relevant both to the political and legal history of Clinton's impeachment trial. I'd be interested to see where the line is drawn on this matter. Thank you for your time and help.
And, in the interest of full disclosure: I am not associated with anyone's campaign in any way, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.124.152 (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think there's a hard and fast rule about where the line is in such a situation — it really depends on the details, and how we present them (e.g. stating allegations as proven fact, overplaying it in the lede instead of in the relevant subsection, etc.) We just need to be careful, that's all — but right now, it's less a matter of crossing the line and more just a matter of remembering that Wikipedia is a volunteer-based project. People have jobs, meals to eat, showers to take, sick friends to visit in the hospital, and on and so forth — so we can't always assume that editors who respect the principles and values of the project, and know how to deal with the matter properly, are always able to be right on top of it the moment the story breaks. If we're in a situation where we have to choose between letting someone like Rider11011 get it wrong quickly and letting a more experienced editor get it right even if it takes a few hours longer than some people would like, we have to err on the side of taking the extra time to get it right. Nobody's trying to prevent the information from being in the article at all; we just need to prevent it from being presented in an inappropriately biased or overly prurient way. I'll certainly be reviewing the Star articles over the next half-hour or so to see what we can and can't say, but I do need a bit of time to actually do that, eh? :-) Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. And just as an example of where the pitfalls lie, I've already heard at least one person describe what went on between Giambrone and Lucas as "adultery" — even though neither of them is or was married. Bearcat (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I think you've done a great job of clarifying the situation in the article without any sensationalism. Thank you for your time and effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.230.83 (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's nice to hear that one's work is appreciated. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And as another example of how not to sensationalize, the recent revelations should be dealt with in the "mayoral campaign" subsection, and really don't need to be given their own special section headlined "sex scandal". Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that the one-week protection I initially applied has now expired. It will be readded if the addition of inappropriate commentary and/or unsourced conduct allegations continues, but as of right now the article is open to all editors again. Bearcat (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I requested this article for semi-protection until this incident is no longer in the news. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 18:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I declined it as there have not been any disruptive edits as yet (since his quitting the campaign). If they start I (or another admin) can semiprotect. -- Flyguy649 talk 18:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't pre-emptively editprotect pages just because we think there might be a problem. If one does occur, we'll respond to it as necessary. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sex "scandal"[edit]

This is hardly a sex scandal. The word "scandal" sells newspapers, or at least increases online traffic at the papers' websites. The guy had sex with several women. He isn't married. Let's not sensationalize this. -- Flyguy649 talk 20:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the definition on both Oxford and Dictionary.com, 'scandal' can be defined as "an offense caused by a fault or misdeed"[1], "damage to reputation; public disgrace"[2] or "an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage"[3]; I hereby request that the word be placed back within this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.254.101.141 (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC) --KRG[reply]
The word hasn't been removed from the article; it's still present in several places in body text. The only place it's been removed is from one headline where it's inappropriately salacious without adding anything of actual value to the article structure. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice the papers have now turned this into a scandal. Meh. They forgot to get my approval to use the word ;) The article will, I'm sure, get tweaked over the next little while. Bearcat, I agree "scandal" doesn't need to be in the header but is appropriate as used within the body. -- Flyguy649 talk 03:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, as near as I can tell the only useful reason for having a "Sex scandal" or "Mayoral campaign and Sex Scandal" header would be to ensure that the word

scandal

is visible in the highest possible font size so that he gets branded with it like a cow's ranchmark. Which would be a rank WP:NPOV failure, obviously. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a scandal if Giambrone was married, had children, and if partner had given up her own life to support his career, and if he wasn't barely 30. "Sex controversy" is a more reasonable description. Why the newspapers shout "scandal" in "War breaks out!" headlines should go on the talk page for Tabloid_journalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.27.19 (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, I just read the article for the first time and changed controversy to scandal before I saw this talk topic. I will change it bck now. Itabletboy (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Length of Mayor Race Section[edit]

Considering that the race only had a couple of significant events and lasted just over a week, it does not merit the same amount of space as several years running major expansion projects for the transit agency of Canada's largest city. Other politicians with media sex stories do not have major sections in Wikipedia. Look at Newt_Gingritch, Mark_Sanford, Larry_Craig, Mel_Lastman and others where it's not mentioned or is a couple sentences. Look at the John_Edwards article, where his affair is one sentence.

This level of mention (a couple sentences) is a reasonable standard, rather the attempting to crudely dominate the biography with extensive quotes, descriptions of furniture, or a blow-by-blow detailed news timeline. None of that is relevant -- there was a controversy, and he left the race the next day, the last part being the actual historical event.

Smitherman press release calls for resignation because of Mayoral candidacy[edit]

This item does not belong in the encyclopedia because it is not notable. It is a generic, canned attack press release to make a competitive candidate look bad, and is ignored by all involved. Every press release is not of historical consequence. It is not notable because it results in no activity or historical outcome. It does not merit the same amount of text as an $8 billion dollar transit expansion.

Speculation on exit from city council[edit]

The chances of Giambrone leaving Cabinet in City Council are basically zero. Speculation is sourced only to his assistant acknowledging that the registration to run for re-election for a fall election has not yet been filed. Leave this out until an announcement is made either way. Speculation does not belong in Wikipedia and violates the rules: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball.

The speculation is also improbable. There is no observation on the Barack Obama article that he hasn't yet announced having registered to run for re-election in 2012 elections, or speculation that he might not seek re-election. Giambrone is in cabinet and is managing many key transit projects, and is speculation "his career is over" doesn't belong in an encyclopedia unless it were to actually happen. This is a living person and the reference is not far from being libelous.

From Wikipedia policies on living persons:

"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.8.57 (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page locked[edit]

Page has been locked to IP's etc.....
This is done neutrally and does not reflect endorsement of this version or any other versions of this article.
Pls talk about changes you wish to implement. There is clearly a point of view dispute...lets bring our views on the subject here. Discuss them and come to a consensus on what should' and should not be mentioned and the tone in which it is mentioned !!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Adam Giambrone. 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 12:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adam Giambrone. 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) 11:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adam Giambrone. 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) 10:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam_Giambrone&oldid=1202281865"