Talk:Investigations into the Eric Adams administration

Ambiguous article title

Four days ago, the article was moved from FBI investigation into Eric Adams' 2021 mayoral campaign to Criminal investigations into the Adams administration to account for the widened corruption inquiries. However, this is an ambiguous title. It does not refer to the Adams administration. I am not sure what the article should be named but certainly it should be moved to a different title. Οἶδα (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• I have gone forward with a move, mirroring the New York Times's wording. Of course anyone is welcome to further move the page elsewhere given the recent indictment. Οἶδα (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  I will go ahead and move this to match the NYT more closely. The New York Times uses "Investigations into the Eric Adams administration" in the title. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Reorganization of article

This article could be better organized, especially now that we have the indictment document outlining the charges (see: external link). Engrigg22 (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Writing style

This is overly wordy and confusingly constructed. Words like “panoply” are unnecessarily flowery language and distract from the facts. 74.213.228.225 (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

very biased article

since this concerns the "biography of a living person" I think the article is not neutral. it is way too long for something that hasnt gone to court. it catalogues every call for resignation using twitter sources like wikipedia is some sort of database app even from minor people that arent notable when in normal articles it would probably be summarized in one paragraph focused on the most notable figures. it also says almost nothing about what his lawyer is saying or people in the media defending him even though that is also in the sources. 189.159.30.185 (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd say unless the person has been named in a secondary, reliable source, there is no need to list them. And I also doubt the encyclopedic nature of listing every single person. Spinixster (trout me!) 03:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, let's start a poll: What should we do with the calls for resignation section:

1. keep it as is.

2. remove people who are not mentioned in reliable, secondary sources.

3. convert it to prose and/or only mention significant people.

Open to more options, of course. I'd personally go with 3. Spinixster (trout me!) 03:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd say definitely 2, and if that winnows out enough people, then 3. NapoliRoma (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

2 is fair. Going with 3 will only make this article more "not neutral" / "very biased." (3 is purely subjective.) For the record though, I have to disagree that listing all of the calls for resignation makes this article "not neutral" when:

1) The responses section clearly highlights responses of others who support the Mayor preceding the calls for resignation subsection;

2) All of the people listed are in fact very "significant" being that 99% of them are elected political officials in or around Adams' own administration;

3) The very last sentence of the immediately preceding section (Indictment) reads, "Adams has stated that he does not plan to resign." With this being said, I think it's absolutely fair / makes sense to list all of these significant calls for resignation to clearly show the differences in opinion -- as encyclopedias should do -- between the Mayor and -- once again -- many of his own elected officials.

As always, happy to hear other discussions, but personally, this is how I believe it should be. Nicetrydiddy (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Listing everyone who posted in favor of Adams's resignation is not very encyclopedic, because Wikipedia is not a catalog. Instead, we could mention that a lot of political officials have called for Adams to resign while also mention specific people in the list by name (who can be decided after the vote), in the vein of 2023_Writers_Guild_of_America_strike#Actors_during_the_WGA_strike. Spinixster (trout me!) 01:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

In regards to this article being "not neutral," being that the "Statements of support for Adams" subsection is now more clearly written (i.e. clearly highlights supporters for Adams with sources), and that all of the sources in the "Calls for Adams' resignation" have now been updated to reliable, secondary sources (pursuant to Spinixster's #2 proposal), I have removed the 'disputed neutrality" notice from the article. Consequently, this issue of neutrality is hereby dealt with and the article -- for now, at least -- should be considered neutral.

In regards to the issue with "listing everyone who posted in favor of Adams's resignation," people who posted in favor of Adams himself are also listed in their respective subsection. Being such, I don't see a problem. As always though, I'm happy to hear others opinions on this matter as well. Nicetrydiddy (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You should wait for more votes on the poll. Symphony Regalia (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

There are two separate issues at hand here: the issue of neutrality and the issue of listing.

===================================================================

For the issue of neutrality, the following concerns were brought up (189.159.30.185):

1) Every call for resignation was cited by a primary source (i.e. X (formerly Twitter)), not a reliable, secondary source.

2) "Minor people" who "aren't notable" are also listed.

3) The article says "almost nothing" about Adams' defense.

In response to 1) and 3) of these concerns, both of these concerns were met and addressed with. All sources for each call for resignation have been updated by a reliable, secondary source (go check), and since 189.159.30.185's post to now, the Statements of support for Adams subsection has been updated profusely to clearly highlight (and list, by the way), people who support and defend Adams.

In response to 2) of these concerns, I disagree firmly with the notion that any of the people listed as a call for resignation are "minor" or "not notable." This article is about an elected government official who was investigated and subsequently indicted. Therefore, listing all of this person's fellow elected government officials now calling for their resignation does not make it "minor" or "not notable" -- quite the contrary, in fact, when most of these fellow elected officials are from this person's own administration.

===================================================================

For the issue of listing (i.e. listing the calls for resignation is not encyclopedic), why is it that the Statements of support for Adams subsection also uses a list form but that isn't being disputed or talked about? That right there doesn't seem like neutral behavior to me, folks.

===================================================================

Now, in the case that you believe in the intersection of these two issues (i.e. listing the calls for resignation causes the "un-neutrality"),

Let me say it very clear: just because the list of the people calling for Adams to resign happens to be significantly longer than the people who support Adams does not at all make this article "not neutral." It is simply a representation of the facts, which in turn is very much "encyclopedic nature." The disputed neutrality notice should absolutely be removed. Nicetrydiddy (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd say 3 per WP:NOT. It should be written according to weight. Symphony Regalia (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)