Talk:John Faso

message: It is demonstrably false that John Faso is a lobbyist at Manatt.  Check their website, www.manatt.com.  No John Faso.  According to his NYS Attorney Registration, he is self-employed at the Law Offices of John Faso, P.C.  It is also disingenuous of certain editors to insist on including references to the 2010 AG allegations without reference to articles indicating that Faso was not accused of wrongdoing.      — Preceding unsigned comment added by History518 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I just changed it to 1952 from a website i found. Thanks for pointing this out--it's surprising the error was ever made, considering the early versions of the article sounded like they were written by John Faso campaign staffers.Rich 07:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: please disclose any personal relationship or acquaintance with Mr. Faso. You are edit warring and have contributed a close up photo of Faso, attributed to your "own work."  SPECIFICO talk  16:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the justification for having a COI tag on this page? No user has disclosed a COI as far as I can tell. A user seemed to make a WP:COPYVIO error by lifting a photo from Facebook, but anyone can do that--it doesn't require a COI. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

text: The WP:COI guidelines are only relevant if an editor is a COI editor. Do you have evidence that COI editing has occurred? If so, take it up at WP:COIN. But taking a photo from a candidate's Facebook page isn't evidence of COI. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the user in question clearly isn't participating in this discussion, so that's not going to get us anywhere. If you want to push a COI issue, bring it to WP:COIN. But the article tag doesn't make sense to me, especially since several editors, including myself, have made numerous intervening edits. Rather than slapping the article with a COI tag, why not tag or address any content you think is problematic or the result of COI? Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the COI template/tag, for exactly the reason that Champaign Supernova has stated - there have been a lot of intervening edits, and I personally think that the article is now reasonably well written - not perfect, but pretty good. It's time to stop arguing about COI and to focus on specific content (in a new, separate section, below, please, not here). -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 23:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI Editing 

message: QUESTION: Does anyone know if fivethirtyeight.com is a reliable non-partisan source? Quis separabit? 20:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   @Klkl3000 -- Well I am not sure about the New York Times. I have heard they are biased. Quis separabit? 22:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: RELIABLE SOURCE??

message: @Tendcozen  Please - we have people from both 'sides' working on this page (@Rms125a@hotmail.com is most likely a Faso supporter but makes reasonable edits, that follow Wiki standards) - Do not sponge, or attempt to hide information by providing external links, or removing a description of a bill and replacing it with just a number. A wiki about a politician is going to have some stuff his supporters like and stuff his opponents  like, all of it well sourced and facts (unless the politician was born a week ago and has no history)  - that's just the way it goes when you have a story and a past.  I see this is the only page you edit and are a new user - do you work directly for John Faso? If so - I'd suggest adding to the positive stuff about his history  (if it's notable and well sourced) instead of just trying to delete the negative.  the internet is a hard place to hide things.
::: Uh, if there are people from "both sides", why am I the only one mentioned by name? Quis separabit? 17:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  @Klkl3000 Oh, thanks for the compliment. It's fine. Now I understand. Quis separabit? 02:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  @SPECIFICO: Anyway, How is this a "SYNTH unsourced juxtaposition of text"? Detractors claim  he won't meet with constituents -- usually code for protesters -- yet there is an image (and I did not upload it) showing him talking to his constituents (presumably they are his constituents or he should asked but that's a slightly different issue). Quis separabit? 17:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello. The words about him meeting with constituents are your inference from your inspection of a photo, and are not juxtaposed in the cited Reliable Source with the other information.  This is OR and SYNTH to lead the reader to a conclusion that's not in the cited source. If you have RS that discusses his meetings with constituents, by all means those would not be OR. You'll note that I also removed the pointedly POV caption to the other photo in which Faso's finger is extended and some editor apparently inferred that he was engaged in hostile interaction with a constituent.  These American Politics articles go off the rails unless we are very strict about sourcing and NPOV. Thanks for your note.  SPECIFICO talk  17:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Sponging @Tendcozen

message: (@Rms125a@hotmail.com 
As it says in ANI - the protest issue isn’t going away.  A large portion of local and national news sources have covered the protesters and it is a notable issue for Congressman of this time (much of the national press about the protests has showed images of Faso and the protesters).   It is clearly part of the story of Faso's first term.  The current entry has Faso’s quote included and I believe it is written in  neutral language.  If you want to make edits to the language - lets work on it together to clear any bias - but I do not believe continuing to blanking the section is editing in good faith.  (not wiki related - but on a strategic point from the right, way would you try and dismiss the protests?  in many ways it makes Faso look sympathetic to moderates as he has to deal with all this other stuff that previous representatives have not had to).  comment added by Klkl3000 (talk •  —Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Blanking  into about the protests / town halls

message: I've removed about 6kb of data with this edit and so naturally I should explain myself.  The section lists a number of issues that only someone of a specific political persuasion would find controversial and "notable".  All of the issues listed are specifically opposed to the Democratic party's platforms and written like it. For instance, the list includes that the BLP co-sponsored a bill to allow people to carry a firearm in a school zone. They use a primary source to back up this claim.  What's striking is that the bill is actually to support reciprocity between the states.  That's its primary purpose, but that isn't mentioned.  The mention was specifically slanted to cause the reader to become emotional about the issue and oppose the BLP.  In addition, it lists several rules meant to undo protections.  Again, the way this is written is to convey that this is an evil man trying to destroy the world and remove the barriers in his way.  Each one of the issues listed are issues that are meant to tarnish the BLP's reputation.  That's not the purpose of Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 02:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: All this primary sourced stuff can't be inserted in a BLP without some indication that it's significant. It might be suitable for an after-article section of votes on noteworthy legislation, similar to a list of books published or external links, but primary sourcing is always going to be a problem in a BLP.  SPECIFICO talk  03:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Primary sourcing is an issue, but also if we're going to have a "noteworthy list" then we need a RS that lists these issues as noteworthy.  It cannot be a Wikipedian's self-selection of what they find noteworthy.  That's WP:OR.--v/r - TP 12:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right. Also the list should not have been reinserted, since TP has clearly stated the issue here on talk.  SPECIFICO talk  12:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Absolutely not.  1) There is no RS that labels these specifically as "noteworthy" worth a list.  That's complete WP:OR and a WP:BLP violation. 2) The list uses primary sources.  3) The list is selectively chosen to portray the BLP subject negatively.  Another BLP violation.  Seriously, anyone defending this list is lucky they aren't warned of the American Politics Arb case right now.--v/r - TP 00:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Massive Content Removal

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on John Faso. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/nyregion/18faso.html?_r=3
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60616FB355B0C768CDDAF0894DD494D81
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061219232817/http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/32297p-30622c.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/32297p-30622c.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/nyregion/01gov.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/nyregion/24gov.html?pagewanted=print
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) 17:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: One user wants to change "the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)" into "Obamacare" under the rationale "Using everyday terms so the section is understandable to the average person". I don't think there is much to this rationale: using the formal name of the legislation AND the nickname makes it so that the average person knows what is being repealed while maintaining accuracy. Obamacare is not the formal name of the legislation. Furthermore, there are reasons to believe that some people believe that "the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" and "Obamacare" are not the same things, so using one term (as opposed to both) could contribute to misunderstanding. Using "the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)" therefore achieves greater accuracy and comprehension, whereas merely using "Obamacare" achieves less accuracy and comprehension.  Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)" vs "Obamacare" 

message: Many articles for members of Congress have a subsection for committees assigned to the member in the last Congress they have served in. This one doesn't, and I feel like that should be fixed - but all House websites for retiring members have now been taken down (at least, I checked a few yesterday...). Is there a good source for this information? Airbornemihir (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable source for committee assignments