Talk:John O'Hara (Brooklyn politician)

message: Why this reversion? I didn't check out all of the links, but they look like a pretty good bibliography on the topic. One was an online link to an article we already reference. Normally I'd just revert back, but User:Nlu usually knows what he's up to, so I'm leaving time for a response. - Jmabel | Talk 01:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion

message: I would consider him (or, more precisely, his case) quite notable. He's probably the single best example of the sort of intimidation that is used against those who oppose the political machine in a modern U.S. city. Christopher Ketcham certainly thought so, which is why he wrote about him in Harper's.
Please notice that my previous remark here on the talk page was an objection to the removal of a long list of newspaper articles about the man and the case. I didn't choose to stay here and fight (because frankly I'm sick of spending any significant part of my time here fighting), but that doesn't mean I was wrong. See, in particular, http://www.politicsnyc.com/: apparently only maintained through 2006, but links to a massive collection of articles about O'Hara and his case in the New York papers. (Some of the linked articles are, sadly, no longer online; at least some of those can be found in the Internet Archive, as for example, http://web.archive.org/web/20061123055130/http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=535316.)
I'll try to do a bit of work in the article, but it's very far from what I'm focused on right now. Could this use more work? Absolutely. But I have no question that it is far above Wikipedia's threshold for notability. - Jmabel | Talk 00:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed prod 

message: I would think that in the lead paragraph "He is also the first person convicted of illegal voting in New York State since Susan B. Anthony was convicted for voting (before women had the right to vote) in 1872" was right there enough to establish notability beyond question. - Jmabel | Talk 00:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: This edit by User:Hipocrite removed several things. I completely agree with the removal of the partial text of a court decision, but I don't agree with the other two. I've brought them here for discussion.
1. "Ironically, Charles Hynes, the Brooklyn district attorney who prosecuted him for this offense, at least once registered to vote from his Brooklyn office despite the fact that he lives in Queens." Cited from Ketcham, p. 54. I would be perfectly happy to drop "ironically", since the irony speaks for itself, but the fact casts a clear light on the absurdity of the (ultimately overturned) charge. I won't fight over this one, but I think it is a plus to the article. I leave this one to others to decide.
2. "other candidates he has backed have also been subjected to harassment by the Brennan machine." Cited from Ketcham, p. 54–56. I think this should be restored. It is appropriate cited to Ketcham; I wouldn't mind adding "according to Christopher Ketcham, writing in Harper's" before the phrase, if that would deal with a possible POV issue. The very next sentence (which, by the way, hangs oddly with the removal of this phrase) bears out a substantive example: "In particular... civil rights lawyer Sandra Roper, failed 2001 candidate against District Attorney Hynes was being prosecuted for what Christopher Ketcham says 'most observers agree is an unfounded charge of grand larceny'".
- Jmabel | Talk 01:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Meanwhile, I'll remove the phrase "In particular" so that this reads more smoothly. - Jmabel | Talk 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly, strongly oppose #1 as a poorly sourced assault on a living person. It has no relevence to this specific living person. It is OR by synthesis. It is not our goal to "casts a clear light on the absurdity" of anything - this article is an encyclopedia, not a persuasive piece. Again, in 2, it is an irrelevent poorly sourced assault on a living person who isn't even this living person. Hipocrite (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  FWIW, Hynes being probably guilty of the crime he prosecuted O'Hara for has been much alluded to by people writing on the topic. But, as I say, that on is no big deal. Anyway, I think the way I've now worded things covers the ground decently without needing to bring in either of these particular statements. The fact that charges against Roper were dismissed (which had not yet happened when I originally wrote the article) speaks for itself. - Jmabel | Talk 23:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed material I would like to see restored 

message: At the meeting of the Full Committee on Character And Fitness for the Second, Tenth, Eleventh and Thirteenth districts, which was held on June 29, 2009, the Full Committee voted to approve the subcommittee's recommendation that Mr. O'Hara's application for reinstatement be granted.
Not finding any citation for the preceding, I have reduced it to the citable statement that "The committee ruled in his favor." If anyone has a citation for this as it stood, please do restore this more specific language with citation. - Jmabel | Talk 01:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Committee on Character And Fitness 

message: I believe that in the roughly three hours since I was notified of issues with this article, I've done a good job of citing solidly for the content and bringing it up to date. As far as I'm concerned, the only open issue is that I would like to restore the statement "other candidates he has backed have also been subjected to harassment by the Brennan machine." Given that two cited examples are given, I don't see why this should be controversial; at most we perhaps would want to leave out "by the Brennan machine", or put "Brennan machine" in quotation marks, and be clear that it is Ketcham's phrase.
I don't systematically keep track of a watchlist these days; I'll check in a couple of times over the next few days, but after that if anyone feels I still have not cited adequately for something in the article, I'd greatly appreciate a note on my talk page. Thanks in advance. - Jmabel | Talk 02:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Status of article