Talk:2000 United States Senate election in New York

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) event(s).

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

New York (state) Mid‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

2000 United States Senate election in New York has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 18, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Bad article

This is just a straight copy of one section of the Hillary Rodham Clinton article. As such, it's totally Clinton-centric. To be a good article about the election, it needs to cover Guiliani and Lazio much more. It also needs to give a much better vote breakdown, describe the debates, cover third-party candidates, and so forth. Look at some of the other state election articles for guidance. Wasted Time R 04:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun remedying these faults. Wasted Time R 12:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I worked on the article periodically, finally "finishing" it in December 2007. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA hold

This article is very close to GA status. Where it says citation needed, there needs to be a citation. The next paragraph after needs a citation too. After that, I will approve the article.User:calbear22 (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time on this. The required citations have been added, with adjustments made in some cases to the text involved. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA approval and review

1. Prose- check.

2. Verifiable- check. Sourcing is excellent.

3. Coverage- check. Coverage is comprehensive. Excellent.

4. Neutral- Check. No position is stated that is not sourced or universally accepted. No bias. Looking closer, some statements don't meet the "Let the facts speak for themselves" criteria in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view guidelines. This is a possible area for the article to improve.

5. Stable- check. Little vandalism and no edit wars.

6. Images- check. The first image is under discussion and a section or two might be improved by images, but images in the article are excellent. Thanks.User:calbear22 (talk) 08:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Hillaryandsuha.jpg

The image Image:Hillaryandsuha.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on United States Senate election in New York, 2000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Senate election in New York, 2000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110520110705/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/08/senate.wrap/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/08/senate.wrap/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States Senate election in New York, 2000. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 12:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giuliani's "unsubstantiated" attacks on Hillary's health

I take exception with this sentence: "His actions on behalf of Trump included not only fiery attacks on Clinton's record as Secretary of State but also the promotion of unsubstantiated claims that she was experiencing significant problems with her health."

1) Both sources are from left-wing news outlets (Washington Post and NBC News), posing WP:POV problems.
2) Both sources are dated in August 2016, before the ubiquitous video was released of Hillary wobbling and being held up by aides, then collapsing to her knees as she was being assisted into her transportation van. The fact that she originally claimed her coughing fits were due to "Trump allergies," then "overheating," and finally "pneumonia," fueled ongoing rumors of Hillary's ailing health.
3) The above, combined with the fact that there are numerous instances of Hillary being helped up stairs by aides, as well as holding onto her aides as she spoke at her rallies, requires an update to this sentence with new phrasing and additional sources. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're gonna start off by arguing that WaPo and NBC News are "left-wing news outlets", we're not gonna get anywhere. WP:RSN is over that way --> Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are over yonder ---> Back to the point, as of right now, @Volunteer Marek's edit is contested and he/she is encouraged to use this article's talk page in order to gain consensus for this version. Violations of current version: WP:DUE, WP:POV, WP:10YT. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the original version.

Here is your controversial change, which involves adding the tag

Here is my edit.

Here is you completely changing the text, removing the source that is in there and substituting in another source.

Here is me challenging your version.

If you want to argue, in all seriousness, that WaPo or NBC news are not reliable sources, please go to WP:RSN.

There's no incivility in my comment, and you've used up your allotment of good faith long ago by your use of various talk pages to soapbox about your own political views. Also, please actually read WP:AGF. These parts:

"exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others."

"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary"

Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"evidence to the contrary" Evidence for YOU. To all others, my edits are considered to be in good faith. Your history in edit warring makes this sentence much more applicable to your edits. Regardless of your repulsive attack that my edit was due to my "dislike" of the content, the main reason for updating the source is because the previous source was outdated. The NBC article was written in August, before probably the most significant health event of Hillary during the campaign: her collapse outside of the 9/11 memorial which she originally blamed on overheating, and then on pneumonia. In the interest of compromise, I used WaPo as the updated source. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've made three reverts on this article, including a 1RR violation. I've made two reverts. You're edit warring and failing to observe discretionary sanction.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And don't even try to pretend you're "compromising". You're edit warring to restore your own preferred version, despite the fact that it has been challenged.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please. You're not impressing anyone, Marek. Nobody reverted anything. I deleted your POV filth about "Fake news sites," updated the obsolete source, and replaced it with a current article from the same left-wing source. Remember, after I made my original edit, you kicked in the door and edited my version to reflect your worldview. You did this without participating in the talk page discussion. Big no-no. Finally, there is no discretionary sanction on this article that I'm aware of. Your furious efforts to sanitize all these political pages that you've been tearing apart has gotten you all mixed up, and are now forgetting which one you're currently scrubbing clean. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've gotta stop this, @Volunteer Marek. Your constant and egregious disruptive editing will not be allowed to continue. How you've been able to get away with this for 11 years is beyond me, but this crusade is rapidly coming to a close. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're edit warring and you've broken 1RR. You are also referring to another editor's edits as "filth", despite the fact that it was straight from the source. You are also making personal attacks and threats. I really do suggest, and this is meant as good faithed advice, that you self-revert and tone down your language.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, nobody reverted anything. You may have me mixed up with someone else. And no, the previous source made no mention of "fake news site." That's a mainstream media talking point that emerged long after the August article was written. I stand by my characterization of your strongly POV and UNDUE edit. Nobody personally attacked you, and nobody threatened you. You need to stop the dramatics, and if you'd like, you are more than welcome to engage in a CIVIL discussion regarding the current, neutral version as it stands now. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Once again, nobody reverted anything" - ffs, there's three diffs right above which show your reverts.

"the previous source made no mention of "fake news site." - "Giuliani on Monday continued to insist that Hillary Clinton's physical and mental health is failing but again offered no evidence beyond unsubstantiated or debunked theories circulating on the Internet". What do you think "unsubstantiated or debunked theories circulating on the Internet" means? If you insist, we can change "fake news site" to a direct quote of "unsubstantiated or debunked theories circulating on the Internet".

Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're defending an obsolete source, @Volunteer Marek. Arguing semantics in an article about Hillary's health before the 9/11 memorial collapse is like sourcing the Newsweek pre-printed issue with "Madam President" on the cover for reaction to Hillary's winning the presidency. It's a bad, out of date source, and I'm beyond confused why anyone would insist on including it. Rudy Giuliani raised questions about Hillary's health, and it continued after she was videotaped collapsing into a van. The concerns that Rudy raised about Hillary's health are mentioned in the article in the most objective, neutral view possible. Any attempts to push some POV agenda like "unsubstantiated claims propagated by fake news sites" have no place in this article. The 2012 concussion is on record, as is her being helped up steps by the Secret Service, as is her being held up by aides during rallies, as are the coughing fits, as are the blaming the fits on Trump allergies, then later overheating, and finally pneumonia. The alleged "seizures," being hooked up with medical devices during the debates, her alleged affliction with Stage III Parkinson's Disease, and using a body double after the 9/11 memorial collapse? Those are unsubstantiated/debunked claims. The point is that all of this intricate detail of a single campaign issue miserably fails WP:DUE and WP:10YT.

If you want to argue that NBC news is not a reliable source, take it to WP:RSN. The part about "unsubstantiated claims..." is from the source as shown above. You're still in violation of 1RR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read carefully. It doesn't matter if NBC News (attended John Podesta-hosted dinner to discuss media strategy to "sell" Hillary to the American public) and Washington Post (assigned 20 reporters to a special team to dig up dirt on Trump) is a RSN. You can take it to WP:RSN if you'd like. I highly encourage you to do so, in fact. What matters is that the previous source was obsolete, and had incorrect/out-of-date information. I updated the source, therefore there is no reversion violation. You are still in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, however. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't unilaterally declare a reliable source "obsolete". Please show me a policy to that effect. This is just WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. The info was fine. That it was "incorrect/out-of-date" is your own personal original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are actually two sources there. And they're both correct and reliable. Please stop it with POV original research and the edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't declare anything as obsolete. The source fits the Merriam-Webster definition of "obsolete." As far as the Wikipedia policy, please review WP:RSUW. An excerpt: Where a subject has evolved or changed over time a long standing source may not be accurate with respect to the current situation. The article claiming that Rudy's claims that Hillary was in poor health were unsubstantiated were written before she was observed collapsing into a van and admitted to being afflicted with pneumonia, a disease that remains a leading cause of death. This makes the NBC article a non-WP:RS. If you can't handle not having your POV edit in the article, that's unfortunate, but Wikipedia policy simply does not allow for your views to be inserted in this manner. Also, again, your edit miserably fails the WP:10YT and is WP:UNDUE. Restored the neutral version with a reliable source (The Washington Post, written after the collapse), and if you would like your personal beliefs to be included in the article, obtain consensus on the talk page beforehand. Please stop deleting current sources and accusing those who use reliable sources as "edit warring." Thanks much. Hidden Tempo (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

<-- I know you're just playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games here, but let me try one more time. The claim is that Giuliani referenced fake news websites and unsubstantiated claims about Clinton's health. The fact that he did so has nothing to do with Clinton's actual state of health. Please stop removing sourced material and edit warring based on your personal IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to make the argument that the claims were "unsubstantiated," then I welcome you to make a proposed edit here. However, I am eager to see how you plan on doing that given the wealth of reliable sources that disagree with that statement, and perhaps more importantly...an edit that passes the 10YT and DUE. Hidden Tempo (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Show me this "wealth of reliable sources".

"on television, he has relentlessly drawn attention to unsubstantiated theories about Clinton’s health."
"For Giuliani, age 72 and more than a decade removed from office, this season of political rejuvenation has invited fresh controversy and a reevaluation of his legacy." <-- Yeah, I'd say that meets WP:10YT and DUE.
" but again offered no evidence beyond unsubstantiated or debunked theories circulating on the Internet."
" urged people to look for videos on the Internet that support such theories. "
"offering up old photos and debunked reports, such as Clinton faking medical records or false accusations that she has a defibrillator."

This is straight from the sources. You don't like it? Well, too bad. We follow reliable sources not your own personal opinions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem! The Washington Times talks of her arrythmia, leaking heart valve, chronic low blood pressure, and numerous fainting spells. The Huffington Post discusses a HuffPo/YouGov poll in which people were asked before the 9/11 collapse how they felt about Hillary's health: 52% thought she was healthy enough to be President (about half of voters). After the 9/11 collapse? Just a meager 39%. The Hill has a nice piece on the lasting effects of a TBI (tramaumatic brain injury) and how it helps explain Hillary's chronic fainting spells. And of course, The Washington Post, a staunch defender of Hillary (and her health), issued a mea culpa the day of the fall. The writer confessed to dismissing the chatter of Hillary's poor health as nothing more than "conspiracy theories," but then reluctantly admitted that it was a "real issue" and "makes talk of Clinton's health no longer just the stuff of conspiracy theorists." Finally, your now-outdated NBC News source updated their outlook on Hillary's health after the fall, outlining 9 unanswered major questions that remain unanswered. And no, a single source from August (before the 9/11 collapse) does nothing for your "passes the 10YT" assertion.

So there you have it. This is straight from the (current) sources. You don't like it? Well, too bad. We follow reliable sources not your own personal opinions. For the third time, if you have a proposed edit to include the updated information (which proves that no claims from Rudy or others were "unsubstantiated" or from so-called "fake news websites"), feel free to post it here. Otherwise, please move along, as this is going nowhere. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on United States Senate election in New York, 2000. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 12:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States Senate election in New York, 2000. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 08:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]