Talk:Carolyn McCarthy

message: Cut it out. --Cyningaenglisc 02:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism - 25 Feb. 2007 

message: When you can cite your claim, you are more than welcome to add it to this article. Until then, please stop your unhelpful and clearly POV-laden reverts. Info999 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Liberal" backing and "heavy Newsday support" 

message: The article should probably include something about the barrel shroud snafu: http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/18/video-carolyn-mccarthy-doesnt-understand-her-own-gun-control-legislation/ --NeuronExMachina 00:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a more reliable source first.   ∴ Therefore  talk   00:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and re-add it. The 2nd time, I mistakenly deleted it. The first time, a bot deleted it. I suspect because youtube links are considered copy vios.   ∴ Therefore  talk   01:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think YouTube videos are allowed in this case, because it would be considered a copyright violation, so we can't link to it. Natalie 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking, which specifically mentions that we cannot link to something we know is violating copyright. And just because you've seen links to YouTube on Wikipedia doesn't mean they're supposed to be there - I've seen whole pages replaced with "PENIS!!!!!!", but that doesn't mean it's right. Natalie 19:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, but I didn't KNOW it was violating copyright.  There are plenty of videos on YouTube that are condoned by the network they came from.  CBS has a relationship with them for one example. M855GT 19:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ok, no one is sanctioning you - it's an honest mistake. I don't know how we would go about verifying if the copyright holder approved of posting the video though. Natalie 19:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barrel shrouds 

message: Why don't more of these articles have sections? Howard Cleeves 06:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections

message: Threeringcurious changed the barrel shrouds paragraph from:She responded that more importantly the legislation would ban "large capacity" magazines used in the Virginia Tech massacre and that the class of guns chosen were those used by gangs and police killers. After admitting that she did not know what a barrel shroud was, she ventured a guess, "I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up." [8] to:She avoided the question by responding that more importantly the legislation would ban "large capacity" magazines used in the Virginia Tech massacre and that the class of guns chosen were those used by gangs and police killers. After admitting that she did not know what a barrel shroud was, she ventured an erroneous guess, "I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up." [8] This cost her position an enormous amount of credibility, because she could not identify one of the assault weapon features which she had spent a large amount of effort campaigning against. Logically, if such weapons were truly a personal concern, she would be more familiar with them in enacting such a broad prohibition.[9] Her opponents on this issue cite the fact that a barrel shroud is actually a safety device to protect firearm users against burns from a hot barrel.[10] I reversed this change (for the nth time in the past several weeks) for the following reasons:
* "The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance..." is not a reliable source. It is a blog. Please read up in detail what that entails. In particular: A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. This is not a published source. And again:Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.This has no such structures. And more:In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. This blog is none of those. More:Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
* The second reference is to a Wikipedia article. Again from reliable sources:Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources.
Wikipedia can never be used as a source.
Therefore, the text that you added is still not valid for Wikipedia, I'm sorry.
* A point-of-view characterizations such as "She avoided the question", violates No Point of View -- keep things neutral.
* "This cost her position an enormous amount of credibility," is a violation of no original research.
Fundamentally, it is arguably invalid to even have this section in her article. Accept in affected communities, it isn't earth-shattering news, in other words really not notable, another Wikipedia requirement, that a congressperson doesn't know all the details in a piece of legislation that they are supporting. Just look at the Patriot Act. John Conyers admitted that most don't read the legislation but depend upon their staff. If we added to each member's Wikipedia page every time they were "caught" not knowing all the details of legislation, it would monopolize the article. 
However, after a lot of conversation, we came up with this compromise consensus paragraph, written in a neutral tone. I would think it is best to leave it alone. 
However, if you can find a reliable source that does make an issue of this, then you can quote it appropriately. For example, "A columnist for the Washington Times criticized McCarthy for not being aware of the definition of a barrel shroud." We just have to keep our POV in check. Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 02:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is Tucker Carlson's show, aired nationwide on a major cable news channel, not a reliable source in and of itself? Tucker was most certainly criticizing her for trying to ban an item without even knowing what it is. 76.123.216.96 (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is arguing that the show isn't a reliable source -- it is twice used as a reference and a third time as an external link. ∴ Therefore | talk 19:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barrel shrouds redux 

message: The article mentions that the murder of her husband Dennis was the motivation for her campaign for more stringent gun control which propelled her to congress, but nothing is mentioned about what gun control laws were in effect when her husband was murdered.  I believe the state of New York had a complete ban on hand gun possession in effect on December, 1993.  A Google search hasn't turned up anything on this either.  Colin Ferguson was indicted for criminal possession of a weapon,http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/19/nyregion/new-jersey-s-new-governor-grand-jury-indicts-suspect-93-counts-attack-that.html but this doesn't say what gun control laws were in effect at the time.  This seems like a very obvious subject to include in this article along with all of McCarthy's position on gun control.  --Dwschulze (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What gun control laws were in effect when Dennis McCarthy was murdered? 

message: A lot of other politician articles, have a seperate articles on their political positions if there is many information, and McCarthy certainly does. Unless there is any objections, I will create a seperate article. Whitestorm17 (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seperate Article - Political Positions 

message: *On the April 18, 2007, episode of MSNBC's program Tucker, Tucker Carlson interviewed McCarthy about the Virginia Tech massacre and her proposed reauthorization of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He asked her to explain the need to regulate barrel shrouds, one of the many provisions included in her bill. She did not directly respond, instead stating it was more important that the legislation would ban large capacity "clips" (sic) of the type used in the Virginia Tech massacre and that the class of guns chosen prohibited by the law were those used by gangs and killers of police officers. That statement was factually incorrect; Cho's largest magazines held fifteen rounds, thus making them illegal under the AWB.http://www.governor.virginia.gov/TempContent/techPanelReport-docs/10%20CHAPTER%20VI%20GUN%20PURCHASE%20AND%20CAMPUS%20GUN%20POLICIES.pdf When Carlson pressed her twice more on the question about barrel shrouds, she admitted that she did not know what a barrel shroud was, and incorrectly stated, "I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up." Carlson replied with, "No, No it's not."
This was a minor misstatement on a cable TV show - not a political position. There ain't any secondary sources to say it's important. The pro-gun folks have kept a similar gaffe by Wayne LaPierre out of his biography, even though it was testimony to a congressional panel and received attention by secondary sources. They called that a violation of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Nobody better restore this BLP violation until they can show it follows all the rules, like neutral POV and isn't undue. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored it. It's well-cited and not a BLP vio. And a 'tu quoque' fallacy is not an argument. -- Veggies (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted it again. You called it a "noted exchange", but I don't see where it's been noted. This isn't her policy, it's just a simple gaffe. As such, giving it attention  is a BLP violation. If you can provide clear evidence that it was covered in other sources than that'd be different. But taking one exchange from a an interview is cherry-picking, which is against policy. Felsic2 (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

text: And again it's been restored without any discussion. Felsic2 (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: . I believe my edit provided those sources. She specifically wrote a bill to regulate something that she didn't even know what it was. That is notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:BLP/N. Felsic2 (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So it's your position that this gaffe must be included because it's covered in a few prominent and reliable sources? Felsic2 (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That in fact is your position. . Surely you aren't trying to move the goalposts now.   WP:WELLKNOWN - "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.". Your BLP/N report gained no traction. Perhaps you should move on to an easier target. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for misstating it. So your position is that it needs to be included because the subject is well-known, and because the negative material is "noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented", right? Felsic2 (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

text: I've trimmed the extensive, verbatim reporting of the interview which seems only designed to accuse McCarthy, not to summarize the matter. Felsic2 (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tucker gaffe 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Carolyn McCarthy. 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/20070630171348/http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/?sectionid=155§iontree=155&itemid=613 to http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/?sectionid=155§iontree=155&itemid=613
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-ushous174785265jun17%2C0%2C4181826.story
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080131061602/http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/?sectionid=11&parentid=1§iontree=11&itemid=693 to http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/?sectionid=11&parentid=1§iontree=11&itemid=693
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080131061443/http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/?sectionid=11&parentid=1§iontree=11&itemid=28 to http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/?sectionid=11&parentid=1§iontree=11&itemid=28
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120421084613/http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/recent-news/tea-party-republicans-block-vote-to-decrease-taxes-for-160-million-americans to http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/recent-news/tea-party-republicans-block-vote-to-decrease-taxes-for-160-million-americans/
*Added  tag to http://elections.syracuse.com/dynamic/external/pre-election/profilesdistricts/NY04.html?SITE=NYSYRELN&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
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) 11:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified