Talk:Charles D. Lavine

message: This page has clearly been taken over by Assemblyman Lavine's campaign staff in order to present his record in the most positive light prior to the election in three and a half weeks.  All negative material, much of which has appeared on this page for nearly five years, has been scrubbed and replaced with obviously political material which mirrors campaign talking points.      — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radman23 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "20101234abc" continues to delete properly sourced and verified information (e.g., articles from the New York Times, Daily News, and Newsday).  The information is IAW Wikipedia's guideline of "Verifiability" ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true").   The reader should note that this began last year on August 10, 2010: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Lavine&limit=500&action=history  While "20101234abc" actions demonstrate a possible COI, the individual should use the "Talk" page before deleting sourced content.  This will avoid possible "Edit Warring." Eyespy4you (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of Interest? 

message: As a concerned citizen, I felt compelled to delete material published on the page that contained obvious spin and had point of view infractions. I again call for a disclaimer at the head of the page to warn viewers.- 20101234abc
Your IP address makes you a concerned citizen from Albany, New York (the state capitol) who deletes verifiable information on an elected official.  The reader should view the similar edits that occurred at 19:13 and 19:14 on 27 March 11 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Lavine&action=history  Again I reiterate my claim that 20101234abc's actions demonstrate a possible COI.Eyespy4you (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Concerned Citizen?"

message: It appears that the Charles Lavine's wikipedia page has multiple instances of bias towards the person of interest. This clearly is in violation of Wikipedia's POV guidelines on biographies of living persons.
Examples below:
1) Lavine campaigned on "Fix Albany" but voted to re-elect Sheldon Silver as Speaker of the Assembly.[17]
2) In the wake of the Israeli Flotilla incident Lavine sent a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama urging that America's support of Israel should remain resolute; however, during the 2008 presidential election, Lavine participated in "Hugs for Obama" as a key supporter of Obama's "Organizing for America" campaign.[21]
3)In the wake of the Israeli Flotilla incident Lavine sent a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama urging that America's support of Israel should remain resolute; however, during the 2008 presidential election, Lavine participated in "Hugs for Obama" as a key supporter of Obama's "Organizing for America" campaign.[21]
Thanks for your consideration. I believe a disclaimer is necessary to warm readers of the apparent POV violation.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20101234abc (talk • contribs) 02:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious Bias 

message: Copied from User_talk:Tnxman307#Charles_Lavine for purpose of giving requested Third Opinion. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, patch.com is not a reliable source and should not be used as one in a Wikipedia article. I've also gone through the article, trimming a lot of tangential material, and removing a lot of promo/POV material as well. TNXMan 02:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Professional editorial advisory board? At this particular patch site (Glen Cove, NY), their "advisory board" includes, among others, a high school senior, a newspaper intern, an amateur photographer, and more "freelance writers" than you can shake a stick at (source). Hardly a professional anything. TNXMan 11:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Where do you see that? I don't see it on the Glen Cove site, which is the one you're trying to use. TNXMan 13:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patch.com as reliable source 

message: This article has a lot of problems I'd like to try to fix. There's consistent innuendo, personal attacks, and NPOV material. It doesn't conform to the WIKI:BLP and more generally it has a lot of format problems. It comes across as a campaign attacking Lavine, because (for example) it prominently emphasizes three examples of people he defended as a lawyer who are likely to be controversial, and places them at the front of the article, without any explanation of relevance, or context. Other problematic lines:
"In the wake of the Israeli Flotilla incident Lavine sent a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama urging that America's support of Israel should remain resolute; however, during the 2008 presidential election, Lavine participated in "Hugs for Obama" as a key supporter of Obama's "Organizing for America" campaign."
This seems to imply some sort of duplicity, for no reason I can see.
"Not only did he receive praise from local community leaders for his efforts in the assembly but also Lavine for Good Government received a generous campaign contribution. American Traffic Solutions (ATS), the beneficiary of the red-light traffic camera project in Nassau County,[38] donated $1,000 to Lavine's campaign in 2009."
Is there evidence this is related? This is really blatant NPOV.
To disclose any potential bias, I am a resident of Lavine's district and I voted for him. That's why I'd like to add this to the NPOV noticeboard, or request comment, before making a ton of changes myself.
Thoughts?
--NYRambler (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lot of material here that is subtle in slandering Lavine, but also clearly against WP:BLP rules.  For instance, the list of cases that he was involved in, which has clearly been cherrypicked to make it look like Lavine enjoys defending murderers and copkillers.  It can all be sourced, but it's cherrypicking, and quite obviously an WP:NPOV violation, even if it might not be obvious to the casual reader.  With that said, there's probably some pro-Lavine socking on going as well, which doesn't help matters.  To be honest, if it were up to me I'd just stub the article and fully protect it until after the election, unfortunately my application for complete impunity seems to have been held up at the WMF offices ;-).  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistent NPOV 

message: NYRAMBLERR (an obvious attempt to imitate my username) has reverted my attempts to remove NPOV and BLP problems, add correct citations, etc. They did this without explanation and re-inserted improperly sourced/formatted material as well as NPOV material. I reverted to the last draft of the article before NYRAMBLERR's edits (i.e. I did not revert other changes made since my edits).
As always, open for comment.
NYRambler (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocked, as is a probable sock. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by NYRAMBLERR 

message: This page has clearly been taken over by Assemblyman Lavine's campaign staff in order to present his record in the most positive light prior to the election in three and a half weeks. All negative material, much of which has appeared on this page for nearly five years, has been scrubbed and replaced with obviously political material which mirrors campaign talking points.
---
Not sure who wrote the above section, but assuming it's a reference to me, I'll respond- I do not work for Charles Lavine, though I am a resident of Glen Cove, where he represents. I have removed or condensed some information- for example, I'm not sure why anyone feels it's necessary to devote half the article to discussing three specific cases Lavine worked on as a lawyer over a decade ago, why those specific cases were chosen, etc. I also have removed some innuendo such as the suggestion he installed red light cameras in exchange for a bribe from the manufacturer. This type of writing is original research at best.
I don't want to create a pro-Lavine puff piece any more than you do. I'm happy to work together to create a neutral, fair, useful page. I am not, however, interested in getting into an edit war with a single user who impersonates my name, creates multiple accounts, and acts in bad faith. I was hoping to make this the first of a lot of projects on the Glen Cove area, and I'd like to work this out and move on.
PS. You also keep breaking the page. Why is LGBT rights under economic record? Why does electoral history appear both above and below the references? If you're going to edit war in an attempt to prevent anyone from improving the material, at least put some effort into it.
NYRambler (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing Edits and Deletions 

message: Listing four ratings with no context is not descriptive of an "economic record." They appear cherry picked (not to be positive or negative, but just randomly) and the language is unencyclopedic throughout. I would suggest removing the paragraph entirely, or alternatively adding a section listing Lavine's ratings from a broad selection of groups. 
Simply saying he got X% from random and obscure organizations doesn't tell us anything.
107.72.162.96 (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic record 

message: These 3 were high profile cases that got substantial media coverage. I revised the wording to make it more neutral.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.126.32 (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I undid the addition again. I agree with the previous talk thread that these three cases seem cherry-picked to put him in a negative light. If the article needs a section on his defense cases, it needs to be balanced. As the thread said, see WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. It's WP:undue to mention only cases involving morally repugnant defendants (a cop killer, a terrorist, and someone who hired a hitman). Meters (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Criminal defense lawyers also defend the innocent and wrongfully accused, and win some of their cases. As I said, if we're going to cover his law career, it needs to be balanced to avoid the appearance of POV. Meters (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: similarly, I'm really not sure how we arrived at these choices for bills to highlight- out of dozens of options, what's the rationale for these? Why not discuss his actions as chair of the ethics committee, which were pretty high profile? Why are red light cameras such an issue but tax breaks for veterans aren't? This whole article seems very carefully designed to technically meet standards for citing sources while leaving the most negative possible impression.
Red light cameras is a major issue/debate happening on Long Island right now. This is relevant information, and properly sourced too.
107.72.162.96 (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal record 

message: I really think we need to work out a better way to handle this. As it stands we're making entries not just for bills he's sponsored, or even voted for (which there are several hundreds of alone, according to NYAssembly page) but even things he's voiced support for Can someone who isn't already vested in this particular dispute help lay out a good heuristic here? If we're getting down to the level of which appointed officials he's voted to reinstate (as with the Board of Regents, currently on the page) this is going to be a massive, massive Wikipedia article (as in, longer than Obama's).
I'm becoming more amenable to the idea proposed earlier, that we just make this article a stub and then edit-protect it until the election is over. Could we get consensus around that?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYRambler (talk • contribs) 05:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version has way to many problems, including the ones you just added back in. I assume you wouldn't want to let everyone else make a bunch of changes and then freeze the page, either. Stubbing it and locking seems to be the only way we'll avoid protracted fighting.
NYRambler (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legislation Lavine has supported/voted for 

message: This is a classic example of a line that appears technically true but is intentionally misleading. You could also write "Lavine was the only Democrat over 60 to sponsor the legislation," implying that, I don't know, elderly people were against the bill.
The reality is that many Democrats outside of NYC voted for the bill, and so the sentence creates the impression of a geopolitical divide where none exists.
--NYRambler (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It becomes bias to highlight that point if sources haven't already treated it as a notable concern. The examples given at WP:SYNTHESIS are very good at illustrating why this is a problem. Is there a source that treats it as important that Lavine was the only cosponsor outside NYC? Ivanvector (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Only Democrat who wasn't from NYC to cosponsor A8180" 

message: This sentence is confusing. Without knowing who voted against it or why, how is it helpful? What does 'local elected officials' even mean? Local is different depending on where you are. It literally is just saying "Lavine voted for X, which is interesting because some unknown number of other unnamed people voted against X." That's not encyclopedic.
Also, please use talk page, not revert edit summaries, to discuss these issues.
NYRambler (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted this section (possibly the edit you're referring to) but after reading the referenced article I think the section should be deleted entirely. The source indicates that the Senate and Assembly are anticipated to vote along party lines, and in fact did so, so the fact that a Democrat voted the same way as most/all other Democrats, and most/all Republicans voted differently, seems irrelevant here. This could be made into a section about Common Core if there were a source on Lavine's stance on it, but I didn't find one. Ivanvector (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. That applies to the MTA legislation as well, actually.NYRambler (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: so make a section about common core. But the "local officials" phrasing is still incredibly confusing. Local to where? New York State? The board of regents covers the whole state. Local to Lavine's district? No, the source doesn't back that up. I'm happy to let you change the writing to avoid further edit warring but it does need to be changed. -NYRambler107.77.76.110 (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This was a departure from local elected officials who voted against it" 

message: To all involved, KNOCK IT OFF. Discuss it and resolve it here, but stop mucking up the article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: Request made Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Charles_Lavine_.28edit.C2.A0.7C_talk.C2.A0.7C_history.C2.A0.7C_protect.C2.A0.7C_delete.C2.A0.7C_links.C2.A0.7C_watch.C2.A0.7C_logs.C2.A0.7C_views.29 --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection request

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion