Talk:Jose Peralta/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

100 percent reporting

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[1] -- Cirt (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jose Peralta. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

New Edits & Reverting

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I'm having issues editing the following section of this page. I've already edited but my changes have been reverted.

"Peralta joined the Independent Democratic Conference (IDC) in 2017.[33] As a member of the IDC, Peralta votes for the Republicans' leadership slate in the state senate, and is rewarded by the Republican party with a stipend, known as a "lulu," worth $12,500 a year, designated by Legislative Law 5-1 for the chairman of the Energy and Telecommunication committee.[34] Republicans named Peralta only to the vice-chairmanship of that committee, reserving the chairmanship for one of their own, and in order to send money to Peralta, payroll officials falsified state documents.[35]In response to joining the IDC, teenage politician and local activist, Tahseen Chowdhury, announced his candidacy against Peralta for the 2018 election cycle.[36]"

- Some of this information is not found within the quoted sources.

-Some of this information seems to be part of a different page. Should be moved to the subjects page.

-Some of this information is based on personal opinion or intentions of a third party, not the pages subject

-Some of this information seems to have been added to further a political campaign as opposed to improve the page.

-Some of this imformation is using the subjects position in government and taking it to further the goals of someone who is not in office.

-My changes were deemed "un encyclopedic and in PR style" by the user reverting the changes. Although, I believe my changes greatly improved the page vis-a-vis the section above. I have inquired on their page, but I have not received an answer yet.

 D13Friend (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I tried to change this same paragraph above as was reverted, by the same person it think. Even though the articles were sourced, I dont think the information improves the page but looks to added for other reasons.

Where does it say this in any of the articles cited? “votes for the Republicans' leadership slate in the state senate”

Where does it the that the reason of the section above results in this “and is rewarded by the Republican party with a stipend, known as a "lulu," worth $12,500 a year, designated by Legislative Law 5-1 for the chairman of the Energy and Telecommunication committee.[1] “ “ As implied by the paragraph?

This entire section violates some wikipedia policies:

"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR)" wikipedia.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Live1317 (talk • contribs) 19:10, July 14, 2017 (UTC)

From just the New York Times article cited; the source clearly supports that sentences in question.

"ALBANY — Diane J. Savino, a state senator from Staten Island, is not the chairwoman of the New York State Senate’s Codes Committee. But that has not prevented her from getting paid as if she were. The same goes for Jose R. Peralta of Queens, the No. 2 on the Senate’s Energy and Telecommunications Committee who also recently received a chairman’s stipend."

"Under state law, the leaders and ranking members of most of the Senate’s nearly three dozen committees are given extra payments — commonly known as “lulus” — ranging from $9,000 to $34,000 a year. By law, legislators can receive only one such stipend, and lawmakers typically take the greater stipend if they hold multiple leadership positions."

"Ms. Savino and Mr. Peralta belong to the Independent Democratic Conference, a coalition of eight Democratic senators who collaborate with Republicans to share leadership in the chamber. "

No BLP violation here that I can see; please point to a specific fact or sentence. Kschlot1 (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

That part i get but still does not adress the phrasing which implies those are the reasons for joining. http://queenstribune.com/peralta-talks-joining-idc/ It also does not address the questions above

1. Where does it say this in any of the articles cited? “votes for the Republicans' leadership slate in the state senate?” or 2. Why there is information about a person running against the senator, this does not improve the page and it seems like something campaign related. In violation of the LPB policy?

This is simply helping someones campaign, utilizing the years of public service already provided by the senator. This person is not even on the ballot yet and it seems like they are looking for free publicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Live1317 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Live1317: @D13Friend: Uninterested bystander here, just happened to find this controversy in the course of my NPP work. I don't see the problem with the IDC information as it stands. This is clearly a controversial position (a Democrat who has broken from his main party caucus to join a smaller caucus that, by and large, supports the Republican leadership of the Senate, and receives rewards in the form of committee vice-chairmanships and extra monetary compensation). The facts stated are all supported by valid citations. It is true: these facts do not paint Senator Peralta in the best light, but they are significant facts regarding his political past, and removing them would amount to whitewashing the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Jose Peralta. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

leadership

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

https://www.nysenate.gov/transcripts/floor-transcript-010417txt

Sen. Peralta did not vote for Republican leadership - he instead voted for resolution 2 forwarding Sen. Klein as leader, see pages 15-18 198.163.154.237 (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

That is WP:OR; we rely on secondary sources rather than primary ones specifically because they can interpret what a vote means. The New York Times, the current source for the section that was changed, unambiguously states that the IDC supports Republican control of the chamber and that Peralta's vote supported this. Since we have a source unambiguously stating that the IDC supported Republican leadership of the chamber, you must produce a source unambiguously stating that it does not before we can change that wording (and even then, against a source as reliable as the Times, it would only be enough to describe the disagreement.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

He died "shortly after his defeat by a Democratic primary rival"

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I guess this is true since the general election (in which he was the candidate of a few minor parties) was held on November 6, and he died on November 21. But the primary election was held on September 13, more than two months before his death, and his defeat in the primary all but guaranteed he would not win in the general, so the use of shortly is not quite correct. --184.207.33.255 (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The plain way of reading this is that it says he lost his seat (the general election) to the person who was his rival in the Democratic Primary, not that it was shortly after the primary. Whether it is necessary or not is another question, but it should not be removed for the above reason. JesseRafe (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I came to this talk page to mention this very thing. Here's my (admittedly subjective) opinion: the sentence sounds ghoulish because of the juxtaposition. If both pieces of information are to appear in the lead section, then they need to be in different sentences at the very least. Airbornemihir (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. —173.68.139.31 (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)