Talk:Charles D. Lavine

Untitled

This page has clearly been taken over by Assemblyman Lavine's campaign staff in order to present his record in the most positive light prior to the election in three and a half weeks. All negative material, much of which has appeared on this page for nearly five years, has been scrubbed and replaced with obviously political material which mirrors campaign talking points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radman23 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?

"20101234abc" continues to delete properly sourced and verified information (e.g., articles from the New York Times, Daily News, and Newsday). The information is IAW Wikipedia's guideline of "Verifiability" ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true"). The reader should note that this began last year on August 10, 2010: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Charles_Lavine&limit=500&action=history While "20101234abc" actions demonstrate a possible COI, the individual should use the "Talk" page before deleting sourced content. This will avoid possible "Edit Warring." Eyespy4you (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"Concerned Citizen?"

As a concerned citizen, I felt compelled to delete material published on the page that contained obvious spin and had point of view infractions. I again call for a disclaimer at the head of the page to warn viewers.- 20101234abc

Your IP address makes you a concerned citizen from Albany, New York (the state capitol) who deletes verifiable information on an elected official. The reader should view the similar edits that occurred at 19:13 and 19:14 on 27 March 11 here: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Lavine&action=history Again I reiterate my claim that 20101234abc's actions demonstrate a possible COI.Eyespy4you (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Eyespy4you

Obvious Bias

It appears that the Charles Lavine's wikipedia page has multiple instances of bias towards the person of interest. This clearly is in violation of Wikipedia's POV guidelines on biographies of living persons. Examples below: 1) Lavine campaigned on "Fix Albany" but voted to re-elect Sheldon Silver as Speaker of the Assembly.[17] 2) In the wake of the Israeli Flotilla incident Lavine sent a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama urging that America's support of Israel should remain resolute; however, during the 2008 presidential election, Lavine participated in "Hugs for Obama" as a key supporter of Obama's "Organizing for America" campaign.[21] 3)In the wake of the Israeli Flotilla incident Lavine sent a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama urging that America's support of Israel should remain resolute; however, during the 2008 presidential election, Lavine participated in "Hugs for Obama" as a key supporter of Obama's "Organizing for America" campaign.[21]

Thanks for your consideration. I believe a disclaimer is necessary to warm readers of the apparent POV violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20101234abc (talk • contribs) 02:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Patch.com as reliable source

Copied from User_talk:Tnxman307#Charles_Lavine for purpose of giving requested Third Opinion. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No spam from Patch.com (online news website). All items are appropriately sourced. Eyespy4you (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Eyespy4you No, patch.com is not a reliable source and should not be used as one in a Wikipedia article. I've also gone through the article, trimming a lot of tangential material, and removing a lot of promo/POV material as well. TNXMan 02:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC) How does Patch.com's professional editorial advisory board not make this website a reliable source? I ask for a third party review.Eyespy4you (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Eyespy4you Professional editorial advisory board? At this particular patch site (Glen Cove, NY), their "advisory board" includes, among others, a high school senior, a newspaper intern, an amateur photographer, and more "freelance writers" than you can shake a stick at (source). Hardly a professional anything. TNXMan 11:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC) "Phil Meyer is Professor Emeritus in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill" and "Jeff Jarvis is the associate professor and director of the interactive journalism program at the City University of New York’s new Graduate School of Journalism." It appears that they have oversight of all Patch.com content. Eyespy4you (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Eyespy4you Where do you see that? I don't see it on the Glen Cove site, which is the one you're trying to use. TNXMan 13:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Charles D. Lavine and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: I've taken a look at glencove.patch.com and the question of its reliability seems to me to be very, very close. It does not appear to be a site where just any member of the public can post anything they please and a number of those who can post have titles such as "Verifier" and "Editor". If you click on the "Send us a news tip" link, a text comes up which says that tips are sent to local editors. So there does seem to be some degree — who knows how rigorous — of editorial oversight. I've searched Help:Contents and can find no substantial discussions about the reliability of patch.com. I am, therefore, going to punt on this one: My opinion is that if the editor who is asserting patch.com cares to continue to assert it as such that they ought to ask for a review of it at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. That will not only clear up the controversy here, but establish community consensus on patch.com as a source. Finally, let me gently remind both editors that that policy defines edit warring as "try[ing] to force [one's] own position by combative editing (making edits they know will be opposed) and repeated reverting" and that the three revert rule says, "Remember that an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Consistent NPOV

This article has a lot of problems I'd like to try to fix. There's consistent innuendo, personal attacks, and NPOV material. It doesn't conform to the WIKI:BLP and more generally it has a lot of format problems. It comes across as a campaign attacking Lavine, because (for example) it prominently emphasizes three examples of people he defended as a lawyer who are likely to be controversial, and places them at the front of the article, without any explanation of relevance, or context. Other problematic lines:

"In the wake of the Israeli Flotilla incident Lavine sent a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama urging that America's support of Israel should remain resolute; however, during the 2008 presidential election, Lavine participated in "Hugs for Obama" as a key supporter of Obama's "Organizing for America" campaign."

This seems to imply some sort of duplicity, for no reason I can see.

"Not only did he receive praise from local community leaders for his efforts in the assembly but also Lavine for Good Government received a generous campaign contribution. American Traffic Solutions (ATS), the beneficiary of the red-light traffic camera project in Nassau County,[38] donated $1,000 to Lavine's campaign in 2009."

Is there evidence this is related? This is really blatant NPOV.

To disclose any potential bias, I am a resident of Lavine's district and I voted for him. That's why I'd like to add this to the NPOV noticeboard, or request comment, before making a ton of changes myself.

Thoughts? --NYRambler (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of material here that is subtle in slandering Lavine, but also clearly against WP:BLP rules. For instance, the list of cases that he was involved in, which has clearly been cherrypicked to make it look like Lavine enjoys defending murderers and copkillers. It can all be sourced, but it's cherrypicking, and quite obviously an WP:NPOV violation, even if it might not be obvious to the casual reader. With that said, there's probably some pro-Lavine socking on going as well, which doesn't help matters. To be honest, if it were up to me I'd just stub the article and fully protect it until after the election, unfortunately my application for complete impunity seems to have been held up at the WMF offices ;-). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC).

as far as I know I'm the only poster here with a pro-Lavine bias, and I'm really trying to be neutral and not insert promotional material; I just would like to see the slander removed (for example, the line suggesting be installed red light cameras in exchange for a donation, cherry picking three negative ratings out of dozens, etc. I'm definitely not sockpuppeting at least (this IP is NYRambler, just on my phone).

107.72.162.96 (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The ratings were in relation to Lavine's economic record, and it had both positive and negative ratings. Spanning from 0% to 90%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.126.32 (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Edits by NYRAMBLERR

NYRAMBLERR (an obvious attempt to imitate my username) has reverted my attempts to remove NPOV and BLP problems, add correct citations, etc. They did this without explanation and re-inserted improperly sourced/formatted material as well as NPOV material. I reverted to the last draft of the article before NYRAMBLERR's edits (i.e. I did not revert other changes made since my edits).

As always, open for comment.

NYRambler (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, as is a probable sock. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing Edits and Deletions

This page has clearly been taken over by Assemblyman Lavine's campaign staff in order to present his record in the most positive light prior to the election in three and a half weeks. All negative material, much of which has appeared on this page for nearly five years, has been scrubbed and replaced with obviously political material which mirrors campaign talking points.

---

Not sure who wrote the above section, but assuming it's a reference to me, I'll respond- I do not work for Charles Lavine, though I am a resident of Glen Cove, where he represents. I have removed or condensed some information- for example, I'm not sure why anyone feels it's necessary to devote half the article to discussing three specific cases Lavine worked on as a lawyer over a decade ago, why those specific cases were chosen, etc. I also have removed some innuendo such as the suggestion he installed red light cameras in exchange for a bribe from the manufacturer. This type of writing is original research at best.

I don't want to create a pro-Lavine puff piece any more than you do. I'm happy to work together to create a neutral, fair, useful page. I am not, however, interested in getting into an edit war with a single user who impersonates my name, creates multiple accounts, and acts in bad faith. I was hoping to make this the first of a lot of projects on the Glen Cove area, and I'd like to work this out and move on.

PS. You also keep breaking the page. Why is LGBT rights under economic record? Why does electoral history appear both above and below the references? If you're going to edit war in an attempt to prevent anyone from improving the material, at least put some effort into it.

NYRambler (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.80.105 (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC) I do not wish to engage in an edit war. I'm also a resident of the district, who has used pages like Wikipedia to inform myself on my local elected officials for years. All of a sudden, a couple of weeks before the election, somebody comes and suspiciously removes 90% of the information that was once on the page. To me, that reeks of partisanship and seems like an obvious attempt to scrub the page of all content which may be perceived as negative.

Significant and noteworthy events, such as the sponsorship of the MTA Tax and Speed Camera and Red Light Camera legislation, have been removed. These were major pieces of legislation, one of them being Assemblyman Lavine's signature bill, but for some reason they have been deemed not worthy of inclusion on this page. Instead, they have been replaced with material touting the Assemblyman's support of LGBT rights which appears to be taken directly from his campaign website.

I am not trying to engage in an "edit war," and there would not be one if you did not insist on deleting this material.

As for "breaking the page" - I am not an experienced web designer, all I have done is hit "undo" to your previous edits. If you wish to further edit the page after I do this, please go right ahead. But please do so without deleting every bit of relevant information from the page. Thank you.

---

Again, a ton of the stuff on here violates Wikipedia's guidelines on BLP. The cherry picking of three totally random criminal defense cases, for example, makes no sense- there's no rationale for picking those cases, and his work as a lawyer decades ago is barely relevant in the first place. So is listing ratings by randomly picked political groups- again, no rationale for which ones are picked. So is picking random votes to highlight with no explanation- why would Lavine voting on one bill be mentioned out of hundreds of votes, especially if he was in the majority? This just isn't a well structured article. If you want to add in relevant information, feel free to do so, but please don't keep reverting to a badly done page.

107.72.164.55 (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read the guidelines on BLP and NPOV, and also check out some other articles on local politicians that have been given good evaluations.

NYRambler is a supporter of Lavine, the constant deletion of relevant and well sourced votes is malicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.126.32 (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Economic record

Listing four ratings with no context is not descriptive of an "economic record." They appear cherry picked (not to be positive or negative, but just randomly) and the language is unencyclopedic throughout. I would suggest removing the paragraph entirely, or alternatively adding a section listing Lavine's ratings from a broad selection of groups.

Simply saying he got X% from random and obscure organizations doesn't tell us anything.

107.72.162.96 (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Criminal record

These 3 were high profile cases that got substantial media coverage. I revised the wording to make it more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.126.32 (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I undid the addition again. I agree with the previous talk thread that these three cases seem cherry-picked to put him in a negative light. If the article needs a section on his defense cases, it needs to be balanced. As the thread said, see WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. It's WP:undue to mention only cases involving morally repugnant defendants (a cop killer, a terrorist, and someone who hired a hitman). Meters (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

He's a criminal defense lawyer, he defends criminals. WP:NPOV Refusing to post it because it may be perceived as negative is a bias in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.126.32 (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Criminal defense lawyers also defend the innocent and wrongfully accused, and win some of their cases. As I said, if we're going to cover his law career, it needs to be balanced to avoid the appearance of POV. Meters (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

similarly, I'm really not sure how we arrived at these choices for bills to highlight- out of dozens of options, what's the rationale for these? Why not discuss his actions as chair of the ethics committee, which were pretty high profile? Why are red light cameras such an issue but tax breaks for veterans aren't? This whole article seems very carefully designed to technically meet standards for citing sources while leaving the most negative possible impression.

Red light cameras is a major issue/debate happening on Long Island right now. This is relevant information, and properly sourced too.

107.72.162.96 (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, the issue isn't whether info is properly sourced but rather whether it's being presented in an encyclopedic manner. Are you suggesting we add sections for every single relevant/interesting/contentiousn vote Lavine has taken? If so this is going to be an incredibly long article.

107.72.162.96 (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That's what Wikipedia is for. To document these types of issues. It's an encyclopedia. Documenting votes a politician takes isn't unusual, neither is talking about high profile cases a criminal defense attorney defends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.126.32 (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Legislation Lavine has supported/voted for

I really think we need to work out a better way to handle this. As it stands we're making entries not just for bills he's sponsored, or even voted for (which there are several hundreds of alone, according to NYAssembly page) but even things he's voiced support for Can someone who isn't already vested in this particular dispute help lay out a good heuristic here? If we're getting down to the level of which appointed officials he's voted to reinstate (as with the Board of Regents, currently on the page) this is going to be a massive, massive Wikipedia article (as in, longer than Obama's).

I'm becoming more amenable to the idea proposed earlier, that we just make this article a stub and then edit-protect it until the election is over. Could we get consensus around that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYRambler (talk • contribs) 05:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm for keeping the version the way it is and holding all edits until after the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.126.32 (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The current version has way to many problems, including the ones you just added back in. I assume you wouldn't want to let everyone else make a bunch of changes and then freeze the page, either. Stubbing it and locking seems to be the only way we'll avoid protracted fighting.

NYRambler (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Making up names for things is against Wiki rules

Please stop inserting "MTA Payroll Tax" as a substitute name for A8180. That's not the name of the bill, and continuing to insert it is a violation of both WIKI:OR and WIKI:V.

It's also not ok to change "Funding the Metropolitan Transit Authority" to "MTA Tax Bill." A8180 did more than change the tax code, it's not called the MTA Tax Bill, and not everyone even knows what the MTA is.

Cut it out.

NYRambler (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

MTA Payroll Tax is not a made up name. It is the name used by every major news source to refer to the major and controversial portion of the legislation which created the tax. See [1] or [2], from Long Island's major newspaper publication for examples. This example is from the New York State Senate website [3]

More examples from outside of Long Island: [4]

[5]

Reuters: [6]

This legislation is universally referred to as the MTA Payroll Tax.Radman23 (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Radman is right on this one, partly, but regardless you need to stop using reverts to enforce your preferred version of the article. That's edit warring and will get you blocked. "MTA payroll tax" (notice no capitals = not its proper name) is a biased description for the legislation which is used by the some sources to cast it in a deliberately negative light. In full, they call it the "job-killing MTA payroll tax". That's far from a neutral name. However, it is a name that major sources have picked up, and WP:NPOV (a core policy) dictates that we follow the POV of the sources.

But notwithstanding NPOV, the way in which Radman added this information to the article presents it in a biased way, implying that the legislation is actually called the MTA Payroll Tax, and it is not. And furthermore, NYRambler is correct that specifying in this section that he is the "only Assemblymember from Long Island", or any other unpublished qualifier, is WP:SYNTHESIS and not allowed. Especially in a biography of a living person.

Curious: is this the same tax as the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax? Ivanvector (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it might be different. I think Radman23 is correct in using the language that every major outlet, and legislator, has used for the legislation. This is a major issue 4 years after it was passed, and Lavine has been a big supporter of it. It needs to stay.

"Only Democrat who wasn't from NYC to cosponsor A8180"

This is a classic example of a line that appears technically true but is intentionally misleading. You could also write "Lavine was the only Democrat over 60 to sponsor the legislation," implying that, I don't know, elderly people were against the bill.

The reality is that many Democrats outside of NYC voted for the bill, and so the sentence creates the impression of a geopolitical divide where none exists.

--NYRambler (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This was a bill sponsored by NYC Democrats, the other sponsor outside of the New York City metro area was Lavine. I don't think it's wrong or bias to elaborate on that point. That's what makes this situation unique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelckas1 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It becomes bias to highlight that point if sources haven't already treated it as a notable concern. The examples given at WP:SYNTHESIS are very good at illustrating why this is a problem. Is there a source that treats it as important that Lavine was the only cosponsor outside NYC? Ivanvector (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, here: http://www.newsday.com/news/region-state/albany-says-no-bailout-for-mta-after-payroll-tax-fails-1.1644001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelckas1 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"This was a departure from local elected officials who voted against it"

This sentence is confusing. Without knowing who voted against it or why, how is it helpful? What does 'local elected officials' even mean? Local is different depending on where you are. It literally is just saying "Lavine voted for X, which is interesting because some unknown number of other unnamed people voted against X." That's not encyclopedic.

Also, please use talk page, not revert edit summaries, to discuss these issues.

NYRambler (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I reverted this section (possibly the edit you're referring to) but after reading the referenced article I think the section should be deleted entirely. The source indicates that the Senate and Assembly are anticipated to vote along party lines, and in fact did so, so the fact that a Democrat voted the same way as most/all other Democrats, and most/all Republicans voted differently, seems irrelevant here. This could be made into a section about Common Core if there were a source on Lavine's stance on it, but I didn't find one. Ivanvector (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. That applies to the MTA legislation as well, actually.NYRambler (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, several Democrats voted against the re-election of these members, and this has to do directly with Common Core. The vote signified a stance on the issue, and just because NYRambler doesn't like it doesn't mean it should be deleted. This is a verified vote, sourced properly, and meets all the requirements necessary to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asklovett (talk • contribs) 18:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

so make a section about common core. But the "local officials" phrasing is still incredibly confusing. Local to where? New York State? The board of regents covers the whole state. Local to Lavine's district? No, the source doesn't back that up. I'm happy to let you change the writing to avoid further edit warring but it does need to be changed. -NYRambler107.77.76.110 (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It is local to Lavine's district because those members craft education policy that, in turn, is the curriculum of the school districts in Lavine's district. This passage is very relevant, especially in light of differing opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelckas1 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

To all involved, KNOCK IT OFF. Discuss it and resolve it here, but stop mucking up the article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there anyway we can stop any edits on this article until after the election? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelckas1 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Protection request

Request made Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Charles_Lavine_.28edit.C2.A0.7C_talk.C2.A0.7C_history.C2.A0.7C_protect.C2.A0.7C_delete.C2.A0.7C_links.C2.A0.7C_watch.C2.A0.7C_logs.C2.A0.7C_views.29 --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done and applied. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• CharlesLavine.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)