Talk:Corey Johnson (politician)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Johnson's comments re Samaritan's Purse field hospital in Central Park proposed Religious Freedom Subsection
[edit]Hi there, I'm new here. I think adding a subsection on religious freedom to this page would be an improvement. Religious freedom is an important topic to many readers with historic and cultural significance, and Johnson is a public figure in a position of political power whose recent actions implicate that issue. However, a new section with the heading Religious Freedom has been added and then edited multiple times to Discrimination in Healthcare, and all references to religion deleted from the section. The page already contained sections labelled Health and LGBT Rights, so I see no need for a new section on discrimination in healthcare. Also there are no sources listed that show discrimination against any healthcare patients occurred, or that Johnson said it occurred. Below is the proposed section. I understand the issues raised are controversial, but I think they can be covered with NPOV and appropriate care to BLP. Would appreciate comments. As I said, I'm new here. Willing to learn, but getting a little frustrated. Thanks in advance!
Religious Freedom
[edit]On May 1, 2020 Speaker Johnson publicly called on the New York City Council to not "continue allowing"[1][2][3] international Christian relief organization Samaritan's Purse to remain in New York City after the group set up a field hospital in Central Park in collaboration with Mount Sinai Health System to care for patients sick with COVID-19 in late March 2020.[4][5][6] The same day the Speaker publicly ordered Mount Sinai Health System to sever its relationship with Samaritan's Purse,[7] citing the group's expressions of religious belief regarding homosexuality[8] and religious practices in connection with the screening of its volunteers.[9] The following day Mount Sinai confirmed that the Samaritan's Purse field hospital would stop admitting patients on May 4, 2020.[10]
Broom Bones (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ New York City Council Press Release (2020-05-01). "Statement from Speaker Corey Johnson on Samaritan’s Purse" council.nyc.gov. Retrieved May 5, 2020.
- ^ Johnson, Corey (2020-05-01). Speaker Johnson's "statement on Samaritan's Purse" /1 www.twitter.com. Retrieved May 5, 2020.
- ^ Johnson, Corey (2020-05-01). Speaker Johnson's "statement on Samaritan's Purse" /4 www.twitter.com. Retrieved May 5, 2020.
- ^ Mount Sinai Press Release (2020-04-01). "Samaritan’s Purse, in Collaboration with Mount Sinai Health System, Opens Emergency Field Hospital in New York’s Central Park in Response to the Coronavirus Pandemic" mountsinai.org. Retrieved May 5, 2020.
- ^ Fink, Sheri (2020-04-15). "Treating Coronavirus in a Central Park ‘Hot Zone’" The New York Times. Retrieved May 5, 2020.
- ^ Ault, Nicole (2020-04-05). "Christian Relief Comes to Central Park" The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 5, 2020.
- ^ Johnson, Corey (2020-05-01). Speaker Johnson's "statement on Samaritan's Purse" /5 www.twitter.com. Retrieved May 5, 2020.
- ^ Johnson, Corey (2020-05-01). Speaker Johnson's "statement on Samaritan's Purse" /5 www.twitter.com. Retrieved May 5, 2020.
- ^ Johnson, Corey (2020-05-01). Speaker Johnson's "statement on Samaritan's Purse" /6 www.twitter.com. Retrieved May 5, 2020.
- ^ Russo, Melissa (2020-05-02). "Controversial Central Park Field Hospital to Close; Samaritan’s Purse Staffers Will Stay at Mount Sinai" www.nbcnewyork.com. Retrieved May 5, 2020.
- Opposed. Per WP:NPOV/WP:Undue, as I have explained before. Also Twitter is a terrible source, anything worth reporting will be covered in WP:Reliable sources. P.s. this article is about Johnson, not a puff piece on the Samaritan’s Purse organization. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Gleeanon409. Any thoughts on the topic of this subsection, i.e., whether adding a section on religious freedom would improve the article about Johnson? Any sources for your section heading Discrimination in Healthcare? Any sources for Johnson calling on the Council not to allow Samaritan's Purse to remain in Central Park? That is not what your quote says. It says "here." And, unless Johnson was in Central Park when he typed it, considering it was a press release issued by the New York City Council, that would seem to mean New York City. Broom Bones (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- If you focus on what WP: Reliable sources are reporting, Samaritan’s Purse (SP) offered the hospital set-up which alarmed many because of their poor track record, especially their institutionalized homophobic attitudes. NYC felt they had to accept any help offered so went ahead with reassurances SP would not push religious dogma, and wouldn’t discriminate. They did both and were asked to leave, and Mount Sinai severed ties as well.
Ergo there is no real cases to be made that Religious Freedom was denied SP, or that SP didn’t have the opportunity to provide non-judgmental competent care. They blew it and were kicked out. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- If you focus on what WP: Reliable sources are reporting, Samaritan’s Purse (SP) offered the hospital set-up which alarmed many because of their poor track record, especially their institutionalized homophobic attitudes. NYC felt they had to accept any help offered so went ahead with reassurances SP would not push religious dogma, and wouldn’t discriminate. They did both and were asked to leave, and Mount Sinai severed ties as well.
- Thanks Gleeanon409. Any thoughts on the topic of this subsection, i.e., whether adding a section on religious freedom would improve the article about Johnson? Any sources for your section heading Discrimination in Healthcare? Any sources for Johnson calling on the Council not to allow Samaritan's Purse to remain in Central Park? That is not what your quote says. It says "here." And, unless Johnson was in Central Park when he typed it, considering it was a press release issued by the New York City Council, that would seem to mean New York City. Broom Bones (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Reliable sources may be reporting that SP's set-up alarmed many, but the article does not cite those and I don't see the relevance to Johnson. Ditto SP's supposed institutionalized homophobic attitudes, how NYC "felt," etc. Also, sources for discrimination in healthcare? And for Johnson demanding SP leave Central Park, as opposed to New York City? Broom Bones (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- For any other editors who may be interested, a section on Religious Freedom was added, Gleeanon409 changed that section heading to Discrimination in Healthcare and deleted references to religion. Those changes were reverted, then Gleeanon409 deleted the reversion and inserted the previous version, but did not label that a reversion. That seems like an attempt to avoid the three-reversion rule. This seems to be heading for an edit war, so I'm hoping to attract other editors to the discussion. I'm new here. I've not been at all welcomed. I can see that my proposed section has issues, and I'd like to hear what others have to say about how it can be improved, and whether it would be an improvement to the article on Johnson. The edits I've made have been in good faith. But they have been repeatedly distorted to champion a progressive POV. Broom Bones (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- I removed terrible sources, and aligned the text with what reliable sources state in a NPOV manner. It’s what we’re supposed to do on a BLP. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- I added text and sources to clarify that the ouster of SP was controversial, and moved some cites to clarify what they refer to. I still think a subsection titled Religious Freedom would improve this article, and the current section heading is redundant, non-neutral POV, not born out by the current cites, and gives undue weight to a current event in a BLP. But, as there is an ongoing dispute, I left the heading as is. A possible compromise would be to delete the heading and move the text under the heading LGBT rights. Broom Bones (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps well-intended, most of that wasn’t helping and was more POV problems. You have to slow your roll here and recognize this is not Graham’s story, or SP’s article, it’s all about Johnson. On other articles the focus will be on those subjects. The core issue remains not that SP was denied freedom of religion, but that they were discriminating against LGBTQ people during a pandemic which is despicable, they were caught and asked to leave. Rewriting history won’t change that. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm... Gleeanon409 tells me to slow my roll, while WP tutorials say, "Be bold!" I agree that the article is about Johnson, and my edits are good faith attempts to improve the article by describing actions of his that were controversial, using high-quality secondary sources and NPOV. It is not POV to describe controversial actions reliably sourced. It would be a poor quality BLP if it omitted everything controversial the LP has done. Disguising a controversy by deleting reliably sourced content is non-neutral POV, which is the subject of the dispute here, in addition to the lack of any source for the statement that SP discriminated against LGBTQ people during a pandemic. Multiple reliable sources, including the New York Times, discuss the controversy and were cited in my previous version, which was reverted with the comment "poor sourcing." Gleeanon409's view of the supposed "core issue" is not relevant. Johnson's action was controversial, and the controversy should be presented, with regard to verifiability and due weight on a BLP, in order for the section to be NPOV. It seems Gleeanon409 and I are at a standstill, though I welcome further discussion. I am quite new to Wikipedia, and I appreciate any constructive advice, but the back and forth and multiple reversions are getting tiresome. Broom Bones (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Your understanding of the controversy is mistaken at best. SP is a controversial organization whose involvement was protested and opposed because they discriminate against LGBTQ people. Numerous reliable sources uphold those ideas:
- Hmm... Gleeanon409 tells me to slow my roll, while WP tutorials say, "Be bold!" I agree that the article is about Johnson, and my edits are good faith attempts to improve the article by describing actions of his that were controversial, using high-quality secondary sources and NPOV. It is not POV to describe controversial actions reliably sourced. It would be a poor quality BLP if it omitted everything controversial the LP has done. Disguising a controversy by deleting reliably sourced content is non-neutral POV, which is the subject of the dispute here, in addition to the lack of any source for the statement that SP discriminated against LGBTQ people during a pandemic. Multiple reliable sources, including the New York Times, discuss the controversy and were cited in my previous version, which was reverted with the comment "poor sourcing." Gleeanon409's view of the supposed "core issue" is not relevant. Johnson's action was controversial, and the controversy should be presented, with regard to verifiability and due weight on a BLP, in order for the section to be NPOV. It seems Gleeanon409 and I are at a standstill, though I welcome further discussion. I am quite new to Wikipedia, and I appreciate any constructive advice, but the back and forth and multiple reversions are getting tiresome. Broom Bones (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps well-intended, most of that wasn’t helping and was more POV problems. You have to slow your roll here and recognize this is not Graham’s story, or SP’s article, it’s all about Johnson. On other articles the focus will be on those subjects. The core issue remains not that SP was denied freedom of religion, but that they were discriminating against LGBTQ people during a pandemic which is despicable, they were caught and asked to leave. Rewriting history won’t change that. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Kelleher, Patrick (May 4, 2020). "Franklin Graham dismisses coronavirus as a ploy to smear Trump after being told he can't use it to push his cruel homophobia". PinkNews. Retrieved May 7, 2020.{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• "Controversial Central Park field hospital closing". WPIX. 2020-05-03. Retrieved 2020-05-08.
• "Controversial Central Park Field Hospital to Close; Samaritan's Purse Staffers Will Stay at Mount Sinai". NBC New York. Retrieved 2020-05-08.
• "LGBTQ activists criticize partnership between NYC hospital and controversial religious group". FOX 5 NY. 2020-05-03. Retrieved 2020-05-08.
• Reid-Smith, Tris (2020-05-05). "New York kicks out Franklin Graham's tent hospital he used to promote anti-LGBT+ agenda". Gay Star News. Retrieved 2020-05-08.
• "Controversial Central Park Field Hospital to Close; Samaritan's Purse Staffers Will Stay at Mount Sinai". NBC New York. Retrieved 2020-05-08.
• "» Anti-LGBTQ organization's New York field hospital for COVID-19 patients to close". Retrieved 2020-05-08.
• "Samaritan's Purse Central Park field hospital to close as virus cases drop in NYC". Religion News Service. 2020-05-04. Retrieved 2020-05-08.
• "Franklin's Graham's field hospital is to pack up its tents and go". Patheos. 2020-05-04. Retrieved 2020-05-08.{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
- I’m afraid you haven’t swayed me that what we have in the article is less than accurate. There may be a better title but ‘Religious Freedom’ has nothing to do with why SP was kicked out. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Having read the current article version and the text from above, I am at a complete loss as to how "Religious freedom" is in any way warranted as a section heading. Nobody has denied anyone the right to practice their religion - or, if they have, that's not been mentioned anywhere in the article. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Bastun:, to clarify, we know it’s not currently in the article but based on reliable sources above or elsewhere, do you think we need to include anything about ‘religious freedom’, or that we’re missing anything else in particular? Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- I do not. I don't see how "religious freedom" is an issue here. An organisation set up a field hospital. They apparently discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, so were asked to remove themselves. They did so. No "religious freedoms" were inhibited, the organisation still operates elsewhere. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Bastun:, to clarify, we know it’s not currently in the article but based on reliable sources above or elsewhere, do you think we need to include anything about ‘religious freedom’, or that we’re missing anything else in particular? Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- The suggested material is entirely WP:UNDUE, especially on a WP:BLP. Only two of the sources cited are generally reliable (New York Times and NBC), while one cited source is an opinion article and the rest are Twitter posts or press releases. Of the two reliable sources, only the NBC source mentions Johnson and only a passing mention ("
Local officials, including City Council Speaker Corey Johnson, had called on Mount Sinai Hospital to close the field hospital over Samaritan's Purse's practice of requiring staff to sign a pledge against same-sex marriage.
"). WP:BLPSOURCES says "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Unless this receives significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate it is noteworthy to the article subject's biography, it should be excluded. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC) - I’ve research and introduced a new section that focuses on Johnson in reliable sourcing. I think NPOV requires us to cover the subject in some capacity. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- I significantly reduced what you wrote. Most of it was not relevant to Johnson, and the quote by him is not needed. I don't think this subject is particularly relevant to Johnson's life anyway though. Is this something people are going to care about in 20 years about him? We should remember Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- You appear to have fully removed it. I've restored it. There is an ongoing discussion about the controversy right here, so please, let's discuss, per WP:BRD. Is this something people are going to care about in 20 years about him? I think if there's a biography written about him in 20 years, then yes, his actions during the biggest pandemic to strike the U.S. this century will warrant a chapter. Moreso than, say, mandating the presence of defibrillators at ball parks. I do feel the section title ("Confronting religious bigotry") is not neutral to the same degree that "Religious Freedom" wasn't, and have modified accordingly. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- The material was not removed; it was shortened and moved to a different section. Per WP:ONUS, material should not be included until there is consensus to include on the talk page. Material should not be restored to the article while it is still being discussed. I would appreciate if you not restore it until the discussion has reached a conclusion. Could you please explain how including sources that do not mention Johnson are relevant, and why we should include the full quote of Johnson rather than a summary of his position? I also think that this may benefit from being brought to the attention of the BLP noticeboard as well. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- The material was drastically shortened, and included removal of sourced material. There is consensus for inclusion - see discussion above - the question being discussed is on emphasis. At least three editors have taken part in that discussion and want the material included. No problem at all with more eyes on the article. Please do note, you have reverted three times and are in danger of breaching 3RR, hence the warning on your talk page. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- The material was not removed; it was shortened and moved to a different section. Per WP:ONUS, material should not be included until there is consensus to include on the talk page. Material should not be restored to the article while it is still being discussed. I would appreciate if you not restore it until the discussion has reached a conclusion. Could you please explain how including sources that do not mention Johnson are relevant, and why we should include the full quote of Johnson rather than a summary of his position? I also think that this may benefit from being brought to the attention of the BLP noticeboard as well. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- You appear to have fully removed it. I've restored it. There is an ongoing discussion about the controversy right here, so please, let's discuss, per WP:BRD. Is this something people are going to care about in 20 years about him? I think if there's a biography written about him in 20 years, then yes, his actions during the biggest pandemic to strike the U.S. this century will warrant a chapter. Moreso than, say, mandating the presence of defibrillators at ball parks. I do feel the section title ("Confronting religious bigotry") is not neutral to the same degree that "Religious Freedom" wasn't, and have modified accordingly. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- I significantly reduced what you wrote. Most of it was not relevant to Johnson, and the quote by him is not needed. I don't think this subject is particularly relevant to Johnson's life anyway though. Is this something people are going to care about in 20 years about him? We should remember Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Fighting religious bigotry section
[edit]Closing this section as a compromise is being worked on. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I propose this as the section for documenting Johnson...fighting religious bigotry during the start of the Covid-19 pandemic: Proposed [edit] |
RfC: Covid-19 Samaritan’s Purse controversy section
[edit]RfC withdrawn as compromise is being worked on. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In March 2020 NYC became the main epicenter in the U.S. confronting the Covid-19 (coronavirus) pandemic, overwhelming the medical infrastructure.[1] Samaritan's Purse, an evangelical Christian aid group, volunteered to set up a field hospital in Central Park in April in conjunction with Mount Sinai Health System.[2][3] Johnson wrote in a statement from city council: “This group, which is led by the notoriously bigoted, hate-spewing Franklin Graham,[4][5][6][7] came at a time when our city couldn’t in good conscience turn away any offer of help. That time has passed. Their continued presence here is an affront to our values of inclusion, and is painful for all New Yorkers who care deeply about the LGBTQ community.”[1][8][9] The group, who was protested by other LGBTQ activists,[4][5][8][10] and politicians such as NY Senator Brad Hoylman,[11][6][12] assured Governor Andrew Cuomo that they would not violate anti-discrimination laws but forced workers to sign faith statements against same-sex marriages,[11][8][12][9] and were asked to leave,[4][6][7] at the same time the city had flattened the infection curve so the initial medical crisis had abated.[11] Mount Sinai severed ties with the group because of the politics and protests.[12][7][3] References
source survey[edit]Singles out Johnson (Some also mention Governor Cuomo):[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] quotes speaker Johnson:[1][2][3][29][30][31][32][33][4][34][35][36][37][6][7][38][39][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][27] uses full quote:[3][29][30][31][33][34][35][36][37][6][7][38][39][8][9][10][11][12][13][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] References
RfC Comments[edit]
Suggested compromise position: new paragraph under existing heading LGBT rights, rather than standalone section on COVID-19 Samaritan's Purse Controversy[edit]During the COVID-19 pandemic, he spoke out against a field hospital run by Samaritan's Purse in collaboration with Mount Sinai Hospital in Central Park, due to the evangelical Christian aid group's requirement that staff sign a pledge against gay marriage.[4] His comments drew criticism from religious activists.[5][6] However, the departure of Samaritan's Purse from New York City was hailed as a victory by LGBTQ rights activists.[7] –Broom Bones (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC) References
|
Alternative compromise proposal
[edit]Ok, I can't be the only one confused by multiple simultaneous proposals all being discussed at the same time, with alternatives being added in to others' proposals. So - can we pause, review, and discuss? From comments in all the above proposals, it seems to me that a) everyone accepts that the controversy should be covered; and that b) the only real dispute, then, is the extent of coverage? Sound reasonable so far? So - somewhere between Gleeanon409's approximately four lines and Broom Bones's approximately 1.5 lines. A compromise length would be approximately 2.5 lines. Gleeanon409 - what would you be willing to lose from your version? Broom Bones - what additional content would be acceptable to you?
Is a compromise worth pursuing? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I would like to note both me and Isaidnoway do not support the issue being included in the article at all, as we both said that it is not DUE and not significant enough for inclusion in a biography. I also do not think starting a new top-level section here is helpful. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ruh roh! Someone’s being a wet blanket again!
- We already have consensus that something should be added to the article and discussion will benefit that effort. Your position has been made.
- Bastun, I’ll rework mine again to see how it can be trimmed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- "We already have consensus that something should be added to the article". That is not accurate, and if the RfC has reached a consensus, then an uninvolved editor or administrator should be making that call. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Wallyfromdilbert, there is consensus for inclusion, I believe, with only one editor - Isaidnoway - totally opposing inclusion. Your contribution above from 06:28 this morning led me to believe that although you weren't in favour of the topic being included, you at least wouldn't oppose the shorter version. Would you stretch to an additional line. As to opening the new section - there are currently two RFCs, each with an additional proposal. That's... not workable, and neither of them has a clear consensus. Hence my attempt at a compromise. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I said I oppose the content as not being due, but I would not oppose a short mention "if other editors think it worth mentioning". I, however, still do not think it is worth mentioning. I am also aware of only one official RfC being opened above, but it should be noted that this talk page has become "unworkable" as the result of Gleeanon409 repeatedly creating new sections when discussions are not going their way. I think it would be better if you addressed those concerns with that editor rather than adding to it. I have see no one but you and Gleeanon409 support some long version of this content (including an editor on BLPN who was opposed to it), and so creating another section to try to argue for its inclusion seems counterproductive at best. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Wallyfromdilbert Agreed, we don't need any more sections, or new proposals. We need to discuss the proposals on the table, and work collaboratively toward a compromise.
- Can I ask as a general question, how do we know when we've arrived at general consensus minus one holdout versus an ongoing good faith disagreement? Could anyone point me to a policy or essay on that? Thanks! Broom Bones (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I said I oppose the content as not being due, but I would not oppose a short mention "if other editors think it worth mentioning". I, however, still do not think it is worth mentioning. I am also aware of only one official RfC being opened above, but it should be noted that this talk page has become "unworkable" as the result of Gleeanon409 repeatedly creating new sections when discussions are not going their way. I think it would be better if you addressed those concerns with that editor rather than adding to it. I have see no one but you and Gleeanon409 support some long version of this content (including an editor on BLPN who was opposed to it), and so creating another section to try to argue for its inclusion seems counterproductive at best. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Wallyfromdilbert, there is consensus for inclusion, I believe, with only one editor - Isaidnoway - totally opposing inclusion. Your contribution above from 06:28 this morning led me to believe that although you weren't in favour of the topic being included, you at least wouldn't oppose the shorter version. Would you stretch to an additional line. As to opening the new section - there are currently two RFCs, each with an additional proposal. That's... not workable, and neither of them has a clear consensus. Hence my attempt at a compromise. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Bastun, thanks for your comments. Agreed, the multiple simultaneous proposals are confusing. I'm not opposed to 2.5 lines, but I don't think extent of coverage is the real dispute.
- The content I propose centers on the controversy Johnson's comments sparked, which was widely covered in the news. Some of the titles from Gleeanon409's source survey are illustrative: "Speaker of New York City Council Viciously Smears Samaritan's Purse," "Coronavirus crisis -- Cuomo, de Blasio, Johnson bite the hands that heal New York," and "Corey Johnson’s deranged slam of Samaritan’s Purse — which only helped NYC," to name a few. (The more prominent sources like NYT report the criticism of Johnson neutrally, while several other sources included praise of Johnson's remarks. For WP:BALANCE it seems best to include both criticism and praise, which my proposal does.)
- The content Gleeanon409 proposes seems to focus on Samaritan's Purse (SP), general criticism of SP, and Mount Sinai ending its relationship with SP, rather than on Johnson. It also omits even a mention of the very broad criticism Johnson's remarks drew, though roughly half of the articles in Gleeanon409's source survey were critical of Johnson's remarks, and almost all of them report the criticism.
- I also think the tone of Gleeanon409's proposal is laudatory and the excessive context is both WP:UNDUE and not WP:NPOV because it appears to be included in defense of Johnson's comments. Broom Bones (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
(after edit conflict - this is a reply to Wallyfromdilbert): Other editors think it is worth mentioning. I am addressing the issue by asking involved editors to compromise. Again - this is about compromise. On BLP/N, Zaereth proposed working collaboratively, which is what I'm trying to do here. They also suggested that we "settle for a few lines." That's what I'm proposing. Up from Broom Bones' 1.5 lines, down from Gleeanon's 4 lines. And Gleeanon409 does seems to be willing to shorten their proposed version. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- OK - so, essentially, the content can be somewhat longer than your proposal, somewhat shorter than Gleeanon's, if what's included is more neutral in content and tone? That's something we can work with, then. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Bastun. Yup, that makes sense to me. And to answer your question from earlier, I think it would be acceptable to add the quote from Johnson (without interstitial citations), but not the intro sentence about COVID-19, others' criticism/protests of SP, statement about the medical crisis abating or Mount Sinai ending ties to SP. These belong on the articles about COVID-19, SP, Governor Cuomo, Senator Hoylman and Mount Sinai if they belong on WP at all. Broom Bones (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Kk. It's late here, I'll propose a wording tomorrow, along those lines, if someone doesn't beat me to it. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose this as well. The RfC was started just a few days ago, and it's already been decided that there's consensus for inclusion, so let's just go ahead and compromise and include it? If this content dispute could have been resolved by normal discussion and compromise, then stop opening up pointless RfC's and wasting uninvolved editor's time by asking for outside opinions. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- It’s not been perfectly handled but we are discussing so it’s a reasonable path. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
compromise text A
[edit]In March 2020 NYC became the main U.S. epicenter of the Covid-19 (coronavirus) pandemic; because of this an evangelical Christian aid group, Samaritan's Purse (SP), volunteered a Central Park field hospital in conjunction with Mount Sinai Health System.[1][2][3] Johnson stated: “[They were] led by the notoriously bigoted, hate-spewing Franklin Graham, [and] came at a time when our city couldn’t in good conscience turn away any offer of help. That time has passed.”[1][4] SP, who was protested by other LGBTQ activists and politicians, forced workers to sign faith statements against same-sex marriages, and were asked to leave; Mount Sinai severed ties with the SP because of the politics and protests.[3][4][5]
References
- ^ a b ""It's Time For Samaritan's Purse To Leave New York City"". Instinct Magazine. May 5, 2020. Retrieved May 7, 2020.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ Ault, Nicole (2020-04-05). "Christian Relief Comes to Central Park" The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 5, 2020.
- ^ a b Ring, Trudy (May 4, 2020). "Homophobe Franklin Graham's Group Pulling Out of New York City". Advocate. Retrieved May 10, 2020.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ a b
• Kelleher, Patrick (May 4, 2020). "Franklin Graham dismisses coronavirus as a ploy to smear Trump after being told he can't use it to push his cruel homophobia". PinkNews. Retrieved May 7, 2020.{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• "Controversial Central Park field hospital closing". WPIX. 2020-05-03. Retrieved 2020-05-08.{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Reid-Smith, Tris (2020-05-05). "New York kicks out Franklin Graham's tent hospital he used to promote anti-LGBT+ agenda". Gay Star News. Retrieved 2020-05-08.
• Krisel, Brendan (May 5, 2020). "Mount Sinai Ends Partnership With Evangelical Group". NY Patch. Retrieved May 10, 2020.{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Riley, John (May 4, 2020). "Anti-LGBTQ organization's New York field hospital for COVID-19 patients to close". Metro Weekly. Retrieved 2020-05-08.{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Reddish, David (May 4, 2020). "New York to Franklin Graham: Girl, bye!". Queerty. Retrieved May 10, 2020.{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^
• "Franklin's Graham's field hospital is to pack up its tents and go". Patheos. 2020-05-04. Retrieved 2020-05-08.{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Stack, Liam; Fink, Sheri (May 10, 2020). "Franklin Graham Is Taking Down His N.Y. Hospital, but Not Going Quietly". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 10, 2020.{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• "Controversial Central Park Field Hospital to Close; Samaritan's Purse Staffers Will Stay at Mount Sinai". NBC New York. Retrieved 2020-05-08.
References have been combined and put on the end of sentences. I see no reason to include that Johnson’s statement was lauded or, of course, disputed by Christian activists and Graham. Also omitted is the list of other reasons SP was upsetting people. I feel the intro context must be included as that’s what a good article would certainly do. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. WP:UNDUE says "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail[.]" The context about Covid, etc., is giving Johnson's statement undue weight. My proposed compromise solves that by linking to the WP articles for COVID-19 pandemic, field hospital, Samaritan's Purse, etc., where readers can go for more context. Similarly Mount Sinai severing ties with SP and LGBTQ activists protesting SP don't relate to Corey Johnson. Notable info about these events may be found in the article for SP. As a compromise I suggest we also include an internal link to Franklin Graham, which discusses general criticism of him for opposition to gay marriage, etc., so readers would be pointed to that without it giving it undue weight and non-neutral WP:POV in the Johnson article.
- So, my proposed compromises are: including Johnson's full quote, eliminating detail to trim length, and using internal links to offer context without excessive detail in the article. My sticking point is that the notable event was prominent sources reporting the backlash, not the statement itself, so the backlash must be included.
- I'd like to see Bastun's proposed text. But, for the meantime here's what I'd propose:
- alternate proposed compromise
- During the COVID-19 pandemic, Johnson opposed a field hospital run by Samaritan's Purse in collaboration with Mount Sinai Hospital in Central Park, due to the Christian aid group's opposition to same sex marriage.[1] He said: "It is time for Samaritan’s Purse to leave New York City. This group, which is led by the notoriously bigoted, hate-spewing Franklin Graham, came at a time when our city couldn’t in good conscience turn away any offer of help. That time has passed. Their continued presence here is an affront to our values of inclusion, and is painful for all New Yorkers who care deeply about the LGBTQ community."[2] His comments drew criticism from religious activists.[3][4] But the closure of the field hospital was hailed as a victory by LGBTQ activists.[5] Broom Bones (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Controversial Central Park Field Hospital to Close; Samaritan's Purse Staffers Will Stay at Mount Sinai". NBC New York. Retrieved 2020-05-08.
- ^ New York City Council Press Release (2020-05-01). "Statement from Speaker Corey Johnson on Samaritan’s Purse" council.nyc.gov. Retrieved May 5, 2020.
- ^ Stack, Liam; Fink, Sheri (May 10, 2020). "Franklin Graham Is Taking Down His N.Y. Hospital, but Not Going Quietly". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 10, 2020.
{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ Kumar, Anugrah (2020-05-04). "NYC Council speaker demands Samaritan’s Purse to leave over homosexuality views" Christian Post. Retrieved May 7, 2020.
- ^ Yensi, Amy (May 3, 2020). "LGBTQ Advocates Hold Protest as Samaritan's Purse Winds Down Coronavirus Outreach". Spectrum News NY1.
- Well the statement itself is whats remarkable, the backlash—what little there was—was not.
- And context matters, as even a year from now it would beg the question why such a group was ever allowed in.
- Also, Johnson didn’t oppose the hospital itself but the homophobic hate from its leadership.
- Likewise LGBTQ activists were hailing the group being kicked out, not that a hospital was closing.
- I’ll see if I can integrate the two a bit. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Gleeanon409, if the statement is noteworthy, what are the published sources reporting the statement itself, apart from the backlash? WP:UNDUE says "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors[.]" So, it's not our opinions of noteworthiness that count. We need viewpoints in reliable sources, such as the New York Times describing the backlash against Johnson's statement.
- Also, honest question, why are you opposed to describing the backlash? The vast majority of sources in your source survey discuss it.
- Why don't you think the internal links provide sufficient context? Also, doesn't his quote saying the city couldn't in good conscience turn down SP's offer of help make the point you mention?
- Johnson's statement, "It's time for Samaritan's Purse to leave New York City," is not limited to opposition of their views. He demanded the group depart NYC. Hence the backlash. It seems like you are trying to minimize this point, but the published sources discuss it as the basis for criticism of Johnson's statement.
- I'm willing to compromise here. The group was operating a hospital, and kicking them out meant closing the hospital, but if there is consensus for "departure of the group was hailed as a victory by LGBTQ activists," then I can live with that.
- Can I please ask that we continue a collaborative dialogue? It would be more helpful to see your responses to my questions than to keep rehashing proposals. Broom Bones (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Gleeanon409, if the statement is noteworthy, what are the published sources reporting the statement itself, apart from the backlash? WP:UNDUE says "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors[.]" So, it's not our opinions of noteworthiness that count. We need viewpoints in reliable sources, such as the New York Times describing the backlash against Johnson's statement.
(edit conflict)
compromise text C
[edit]In March 2020 the city was the U.S. epicenter of the Covid-19 (coronavirus) pandemic; because of this an evangelical Christian aid group, Samaritan's Purse (SP), volunteered a Central Park field hospital in conjunction with Mount Sinai Hospital.[1][2][3] Johnson said in an official statement that was widely reported: "[They were] led by the notoriously bigoted, hate-spewing Franklin Graham, [and] came at a time when our city couldn’t in good conscience turn away any offer of help. That time has passed."[4][1][5] SP, who was protested by other LGBTQ activists and politicians, forced workers to sign faith statements against same-sex marriages, and were asked to leave; Johnson’s comments drew criticism from religious activists, but Mount Sinai severed ties with SP because of the politics and protests.[3][5][6]
References
- ^ a b ""It's Time For Samaritan's Purse To Leave New York City"". Instinct Magazine. May 5, 2020. Retrieved May 7, 2020.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ Ault, Nicole (2020-04-05). "Christian Relief Comes to Central Park" The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 5, 2020.
- ^ a b Ring, Trudy (May 4, 2020). "Homophobe Franklin Graham's Group Pulling Out of New York City". Advocate. Retrieved May 10, 2020.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ Johnson, Corey (May 1, 2020). "Statement from Speaker Corey Johnson on Samaritan's Purse". New York City Council. Retrieved May 15, 2020.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ a b
• Kelleher, Patrick (May 4, 2020). "Franklin Graham dismisses coronavirus as a ploy to smear Trump after being told he can't use it to push his cruel homophobia". PinkNews. Retrieved May 7, 2020.{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• "Controversial Central Park field hospital closing". WPIX. 2020-05-03. Retrieved 2020-05-08.{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Reid-Smith, Tris (2020-05-05). "New York kicks out Franklin Graham's tent hospital he used to promote anti-LGBT+ agenda". Gay Star News. Retrieved 2020-05-08.
• Krisel, Brendan (May 5, 2020). "Mount Sinai Ends Partnership With Evangelical Group". NY Patch. Retrieved May 10, 2020.{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Riley, John (May 4, 2020). "Anti-LGBTQ organization's New York field hospital for COVID-19 patients to close". Metro Weekly. Retrieved 2020-05-08.{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Reddish, David (May 4, 2020). "New York to Franklin Graham: Girl, bye!". Queerty. Retrieved May 10, 2020.{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^
• "Franklin's Graham's field hospital is to pack up its tents and go". Patheos. 2020-05-04. Retrieved 2020-05-08.{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Stack, Liam; Fink, Sheri (May 10, 2020). "Franklin Graham Is Taking Down His N.Y. Hospital, but Not Going Quietly". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 10, 2020.{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• "Controversial Central Park Field Hospital to Close; Samaritan's Purse Staffers Will Stay at Mount Sinai". NBC New York. Retrieved 2020-05-08.
Broom Bones you have to write for someone who reads this ten years from now, the details of why Johnson states what he does are important, likewise the context of why SP was ever allowed to operate on city property like they did.
The idea that we’re trying to find a perfect 2.75 sentences is silly, we report the facts as well-written and concisely as needed.
The vast majority of criticism was unhinged from eight-wing blogs that are miles away from reliable. I can’t say I registered any really from reliable sources but I’ll certainly look at NYT again. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
(Apologies for lack of involvement today. Busy with work, then actually had a Friday night off. then some not-so-good Covid-related news. I'll contribute tomorrow BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC) )
- Very sorry to hear that, Bastun. Hard times we are living in. I'll await your contribution, but completely understand if it is not a priority. Broom Bones (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Broom Bones, I looked again to find this notable criticism of Johnson’s statement, specifically the backlash for telling SP to leave the city. I found pretty much none.
The NY Times wrote, in total, “Mr. Graham’s critics have received their share of backlash. In an op-ed for The New York Post, Jonathan S. Tobin, the editor in chief of Jewish News Syndicate, said Mr. Johnson and other Democrats had demonstrated “ingratitude” to Samaritan’s Purse.” So we have vague and shared backlash, if any.
Most of the *reliable* sources reported Johnson’s statement, some in full, but there was almost no criticism / parsing of it. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Gleeanon409 Did you read the New York Post article that the NYT quoted and linked to, "Corey Johnson’s deranged slam of Samaritan’s Purse — which only helped NYC,"? Broom Bones (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- I doubt that would be considered a reliable source, but, again, it was generalized toward all detractors, and not much of any backlash.
- In a massive city like New York I imagine that for every politician you can find someone opposing whatever they say.
- I’m still open if you can find any notable backlash. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Pay-to-play and close ties to lobbyists
[edit]Corey Johnson, from 2008 to 2010, was a real-estate lobbyist or government relations director at GFI Development.[1] Anna Sanders reported Johnson received around a tenth of his mayoral campaign donations from "people who work for or serve hundreds of entities that have gotten millions in discretionary funds from the Council"; Johnson denied allegations of pay-to-play.[2][3] Sanders and other sources mention other close ties to lobbyists,[4][5][6] especially the Kasirer lobbying firm, as one of its vice presidents, Jason Goldman, served as Johnson's deputy chief of staff.[7][8] Soon after ending his campaign for mayor, Johnson reportedly moved to start a government relations consulting firm.[9] Johnson was hired by an Israeli tech firm as its United States government relations advisor, with a focus on New York. He will advise and "liaise with municipal and state officials".[10]
References
- ^ Holly Pretsky (May 18, 2020), "Many lawmakers become lobbyists. Who's gone from lobbying to lawmaking?", City & State
- ^ Anna Sanders (August 7, 2019), "Speaker Corey Johnson's campaign for mayor fueled by donors getting millions in Council pork", New York Daily News
- ^ Anna Sanders (August 12, 2019), "Council Speaker Corey Johnson says his 2021 fundraising 'not in any way a pay-to-play thing'", New York Daily News
- ^ Anna Sanders (June 16, 2018), "Council speaker's next chief of staff was a top lobbyist", New York Post
- ^ Anna Sanders (August 25, 2018), "Corey Johnson met with dozens of lobbyists in first months as speaker", New York Post
- ^ Michelle Bocanegra (August 26, 2020), "After a year of lobbying, Johnson backs fossil fuel bill over green objections", Politico
- ^ Will Bredderman (April 2, 2018), "The histories, rainmakers, relationships and clients that make these lobbying firms the city's biggest", Crain's New York Business
- ^ Michael Gartland (March 15, 2020), "Top lobbyist Suri Kasirer enjoys strong ties to NYC Council Speaker Corey Johnson", New York Daily News
- ^ Jon Levine (December 18, 2021), "Corey Johnson looking to start government relations consulting shop: sources", New York Post
- ^ Jenya Volinsky (January 18, 2022), "An Israeli President and an N.Y.C. Politician: Israeli Tech Firm Enlists Big Names for Big Apple", Haaretz.com
I realize all of this information is pretty controversial, which is why I'm bringing it up to gague consensus before adding it to the article. Comments welcome. HueSurname (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- Active politicians
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class New York City articles
- Low-importance New York City articles
- WikiProject New York City articles
- Articles with conflicting quality ratings
- B-Class LGBT articles
- WikiProject LGBT studies articles