Talk:Melissa DeRosa

Deletions of NYT refs and text supported by them

An editor just deleted all these New York Times refs and the text they support.[1] Without proper reason. '

Oddly, as a stark example, the editor made this edit, asserting - quite incorrectly -- that the text the editor was deleting was not an accurate representation.[2] Startlingly incorrect. Just read the New York Times reference the editor deleted! And the rest of the deletions are similarly indefensible as best I can tell - though perhaps the editor can give a reasoned explanation.

Perhaps the editor can discuss their mass deletions here.--2603:7000:2143:8500:B0B8:89CA:77BA:F05F (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

References that were already in the article were removed [3], [4], as noted in the edit summary. The repeated NYT source is about a report by the New York State Attorney General, so it seems misleading [5] to write text as if it is not a finding in a report, and it seems repetitive to the sentence at the beginning of the paragraph if it was properly attributed. This article is a biography of a living person, so we need to be particularly careful about how we summarize information. As to other deletions, as noted in the edit summaries, WP:NYPOST is not reliable and cannot be used [6], and a source that relies on the unreliable WP:DAILYMAIL cannot be used [7]. Beccaynr (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

1. Let's start by handling the issues raised by your edits one by one. This deletion. You deleted the fact, referenced by the NYT, that her siblings work at the firm that she worked at and her father is partner at.[8] That is not "puffery," as you assert. Please give a valid reason for our deletion.2603:7000:2143:8500:BC2F:6814:FD55:D8B7 (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, as mentioned in the edit summary, it is the Early life section, so discussing the later employment of her siblings appears to be a disjointed addition to that section. It is relevant to state she has siblings, so that information is retained in the section. MOS:PUFFERY refers to the removal of the term "an influential" and reflects my interpretation of the MOS and whether it is appropriate to include flowery language in the encyclopedia. I encourage you to review the linked guidelines and policies in edit summaries for further information to help clarify the reasoning, but please also follow up here as needed. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

As to your deletions of the fact that the siblings work at the lobbying firm in Albany at which she and her dad have worked[9] .. It's common in wikipedia biographies to mention the jobs of immediate family members. Just as we already mention here the jobs of her father, husband, and mother-in-law. And especially of interest given that the siblings work at the same lobbying firm that her father works at and which she worked at. There is no proper reason to delete it. If you disagree, let's pull in other editors to opine. BTW, references in the press to concern about COI with her family probably deserve reference as well.

I said the workplaces of her siblings did not appear to fit well in the Early life section. The Personal life section is a different section if you want to add the information there. It is going to take some work to clean up the citations you have been adding, so I am going to prioritize that article improvement when I have more time to focus on this article. Beccaynr (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I can't imagine why you would say that. "not appear to fit well .." Of course they fit well. You're obviously experienced. It is most common to mention sibling in the early life section. As well as their jobs. Just look at the article on her past boss. Andrew Giuliani. And the place that the siblings work is the same as that of the father - mentioned in that section. I can't imagine a stronger case for leaving the mention there. I think your move was not proper at all.2603:7000:2143:8500:BC2F:6814:FD55:D8B7 (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

As to "influential," it is a phrase used by more than one top-level RS articles, so it is appropriate to use. It is not puffery. It is not a violation of wp:puffery. We follow RSs. 2603:7000:2143:8500:BC2F:6814:FD55:D8B7 (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it is not puffery to describe her father as influential. As noted above, it is well supported. The original DeRosa entry in Wikipedia had the following comment: "Her father is Georgio DeRosa, an Albany based lobbyist, called the "best lobbyist in town." This was not put in to exaggerate the notability of the article. It was entered to describe the milieu of her early life and entry into the political world of Albany. I suggest we keep the word, or even go back to the original wording.Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

2. As to the deletion/move here,[10] first of all the location of the discussion to workplace culture was fine where it was, in the lead-in. Certainly adding it to the beginning of the discussion of her actions vis-a-vis a complainant is illogical, and only serves to bury the second issue.2603:7000:2143:8500:BC2F:6814:FD55:D8B7 (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I have general concerns about the way text is being added from the sources, and I have been noting this in the edit summaries, but based on my experience, a BLP follows a chronological order, so I moved the information to assist the reader. I am not sure what you mean by 'bury the second issue'. This is an encyclopedia, so the writing is a summary style, not synthesis. Beccaynr (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I have general concerns as well. I'm adding material from high-level refs. You are sometimes deleting it. Or putting it in odd places (as in the siblings reference). Or combining disconnected material into one paragraph, which is what I refer to when I speak of the burying of an issue. Chrono order is fine. But when there is an event on Day X, and that is the focus of a paragraph, the chrono order calls for Day X to be the pertinent date for the paragraph, not dates relating to later discussions of the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2143:8500:BC2F:6814:FD55:D8B7 (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

References

WP:BLP

It appears to be a WP:BLP problem to write, e.g. "An investigation by The New York Times found DeRosa directed the New York Health Department" when the independent and reliable sources say, including the one cited, "Several of Mr. Cuomo’s top aides, including his most senior adviser, Melissa DeRosa, directed [...] a Times investigation found." NYT and the original NYT article states, e.g. "The aides who were involved in changing the report included Melissa DeRosa" NYT, and there is also "New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s top advisers successfully pushed state health officials to strip a public report of data" WSJ. Text that only focuses on DeRosa when sources otherwise identify her as part of a group appears to be a misrepresentation, so I have edited this section [11]. Also, the placement and use of a quote from material apparently leaked to the WP:NYPOST [12] appears to be a form of WP:SYNTH and WP:NEGATIVESPIN, in addition to reliability concerns related to the origin of the material. It also appears to be original research to speculate on the employer relationship between her and Wing when there appear to be no sources supporting the conclusion and what seems to be an implied WP:NEGATIVESPIN, so I also edited this section [13]. My concerns are based in the biography of living persons policy, and the care needed when summarizing sources. Beccaynr (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Whitewashing

Much appropriate material has been deleted. Under the guise of application of BLP and other policies. But the rationales appear to me to be wholly unavailing.

Frankly, it couldn’t be more of a whitewash IMO if a family lobbying firm were to have instead made these changes, rather than it be the work of non-COI editing. 2603:7000:2143:8500:B46E:BBAF:C379:B828 (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)