Talk:Eva Moskowitz

message: A few points about recent editing:
* I didn't add "powerful" regarding the UFT but it's probably sourceable. I'm not sure being powerful is debated but, if it is, then the proper place for both views would be in the United Federation of Teachers article. I was going to look for a source as I doubt the one present was it, but now there's no need. If it's re-added to this article, it should be sourced and it should be added to the union article besides being added to this one.
* Her possibly running in 2017 is verifiably sourceable, so the constraint on future predictions may not apply and it was due weight when added, but the sources are probably not recent, so weight may no longer apply for the lead. I don't think anyone but the newly-elected incumbent is publicly running in 2017 as of now, but saying so would be original research.
* Her middle name is not "sometimes" omitted; it's absent from almost all sources I've seen.
* Her date of birth appeared in this revision (since userfied) before my editing and without a source. I have ideas for where it might be sourced and I plan to check soon.
* Thanks for catching the syntax error (which I think was mine) and the link being no longer valid (I replaced it).
Nick Levinson (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  With respect to her middle name: most people's middle names are not used most of the time.  To mention in the first sentence of the article that her name is (sometimes, usually, often) omitted gives inappropriate emphasis to this trivial (and not Moskowitz-specific) fact.  Also, it's a classic piece original research, unless you have a source that says something about the usage of her middle name. --JBL (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  UFT as powerful, 2017 race, middle name, DoB, and thanks 

message: I noted that this article did not have her DOB, and then saw that it appeared in the text but with "" so that it would not appear in the public version. Can anyone explain why? Thanks. Bangabandhu (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Because someone wrote it there but no one has ever produced a reliable source.  (It is mentioned above on this page.) --JBL (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, should have seen that. Anyway, I found a source, added, and removed tag. Bangabandhu (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --JBL (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Birth 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Eva Moskowitz. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150421221049/http://gothamist.com/2005/07/26/eva_moskowitz_city_council_member.php to http://gothamist.com/2005/07/26/eva_moskowitz_city_council_member.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140324032550/http://newyorkcharters.org/documents/BrooklynSuccess2FullApplicationPART1Redacted1.pdf to http://newyorkcharters.org/documents/BrooklynSuccess2FullApplicationPART1Redacted1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140422234602/http://www.networkforpubliceducation.org/news/mayor-de-blasio-and-education-fact-checking-eva-moskowitzs-claims-diane-ravitch-in-the-huffington-post/ to http://www.networkforpubliceducation.org/news/mayor-de-blasio-and-education-fact-checking-eva-moskowitzs-claims-diane-ravitch-in-the-huffington-post/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: , I'm glad to see you're still watching the article.  Your trimming in January of last year, followed by that of , was a major improvement: the article was bloated and overly promotional before.  I regret that I have not had (and probably will not have) the time to carefully examine 's edits over the past week or two, but the one or two checks I've done have been somewhat concerning: for example, here we've got the addition of the promotional "her star rose ...", this edit appears to selectively remove negative content (see the final block of removed text), plus the weird puffery around Stuyvesant in the early life section.  Thoughts about how to proceed are welcome. --JBL (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I also did not review them as a block of edits or interact with Oceanflynn (but they seemed to be receptive to my comments and tags and acted neutrally, only removing the tags that they seemed to in good faith believe they addressed and leaving the others) but just did a gestalt review of the current state of the article as it was, rather than an old versus new look through. I agree on the large that there is more promotional-ish content here than there should be, and will trim the Stuy intro, there's more than enough plaudits on that school on its page and it's hardly controversial to call it the best public HS in NYC, so I don't think we need a newspaper, besides which the quote is kinda hearsay. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about recent expansion, puffery, whitewashing 

message: Hey there,
I have made some edits on quotes within this article. These were mainly done in the following way:
• Rephrasing some passages where a direct quote was not necessarily needed.
• Shortening quotes where key words from the quote were sufficient in explaining the point being made.
Example 1:
The word "reimagined" was quoted, but I simply removed the quote and wrote "form new conceptions of".
Example 2:
"We simply do not believe that because children are low income or come from certain neighbourhoods that they cannot achieve at the highest levels" to "cannot achieve at the highest levels". 
Considering the beginning of the paragraph states "Moskowitz believes that many underestimate the aptitude of inner city, low-income students" - I felt the beginning part of the quote could be left out as there was already a sufficient introductory sentence. 
Please feel free to check these edits and let me know your thoughts!
(Vikster28 (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits made to quotes