Talk:Sue W. Kelly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sue W. Kelly is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, which collaborates on the United States Congress and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, visit the project page for more information.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Article in the news 2 Commentary Removal 3 Questionable self reference 4 Inclusion of what Sue W. Kelly did not support 5 debate avoidance 6 End of office term? 7 Removal of RNN's YouTube links

[edit] Article in the news

The battle over this page has been picked up by Kelly's local newspaper: http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2006/02/22/news-bskelly-02-22.html

And who exactly is "Polticsny.com"? RMc 12:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.politicsny.com/ leans left, so I have added that fact. RMc 13:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

After taking a look at it, I'm not sure it should be in there at all. The site hasn't been updated in months and those rankings are from 2003. I couldn't find any references to the site or its rankings from independent sources. With that in mind, I don't think it's all that notable.-Maximusveritas 21:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it for the reasons stated above. - Maximusveritas 06:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a item from Crain's New York (suscription req'd): A Republican operative is one of the financial backers for The Publius Group, the parent company of the PoliticsNY.com Web site. PoliticsNY.com is an anonymously written site that has sparked much speculation in political circles about the identity of its authors. According to corporate filings in Delaware, Jordan Lieberman, former campaign manager for David Cornstein's short-lived campaign for state comptroller, is listed as the sole director or corporate officer of The Publius Group. The papers were filed Aug. 3, 2000, and listed Mr. Lieberman's parents' home in New Jersey as the company's address.

Crain's New York Business, April 1, 2002, Monday, Pg. 10

[edit] Commentary Removal

"her Democratic opponent was not only poorly funded but managed his campaign so badly that several staffers sued him for intentional infliction of emotional distress after the election."

Removed THIS commentary above from HER biography. There was NO source given for these assertions. Additionally, THIS information about her opponent has nothing to do with the woman herself, and appears to simply be a smear of her opponent.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.200 (talk • contribs) .

Seems like a reasonable editorial decision. — TheKMan^talk 07:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone gone to any length to ascertain the contributer of the above commentary? Is there any compelling evidence to suggest it was done by a political opponent?Yeago 04:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that's irrelevant. Remember to comment on content, not the contributor, and to assume good faith. Anyways, the anonymous editor makes valid points. No sources are given (and not even a name). Also, this article is about "Sue Kelly"; it's fine to mention that she had an opponent in an election, and that he/she lost, but I fail to see how the opponent being sued by his/her own staffers has anything to do with Kelly at all. — TheKMan^talk 05:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the commentary is extraneous and does not merit inclusion. If anyone has any evidence to suggest this was done as a smear by a political opponent—regardless of how relevant they feel this information is—I am curious to know. Thank you.Yeago 05:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you were speaking about the original contributor of the content in question. That was user Daniel Case (talk • contribs).[1] — TheKMan^talk 05:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. What about the original comment? Strange how they instantly think 'smear'.Yeago 05:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, only found this when I archived my talk page. I put it in before the edit wars just to provide some perspective on why her 2004 re-election was so overwhelming. It was reported at the time, in the Times Herald Record. However, I agree it isn't really relevant anymore. Daniel Case 17:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

64.12.116.200 (talk • contribs) is the IP address of an AOL proxy server, so it would be impossible for us to determine who raised the concerns, and nearly all edits made before and after the comment here were most likely made by other people anyway. Again, I do feel the user made valid points. — TheKMan^talk 05:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable self reference

Should the "Wikipedia controversy" section even be in this article? It seems to violate WP:SELF. I personally feel that this mention of some sort of organized effort to POV push this Wikipedia article by some outside party has no place in this biography. — TheKMan^talk 07:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• It can be relevant if the quote can actually be verified. The way it's written, all of the admin who keep the bias out become "supporters" by default. Personally, all I support is a tidy Wikipedia. – ClockworkSoul 13:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this should be a biography about this person, not an examination of a group that wants to POV push her article and the editors that revert them. This event is of minor importance, and will be forgotten in a few weeks anyway. — TheKMan^talk 13:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of what Sue W. Kelly did not support

As shown by this diff, we are having a small edit war about whether or not we should include mention of certain bills Sue W. Kelly did not support - personally, as an uninvolved third party, I feel that such information is irrelevant to her career. Unless she specifically denounced the issue, simply not signing one of many issues does not seem to be notable enough about her to be included. I'm open to hearing the other side of the story, however. Cowman109^Talk 03:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User jjetski continues to delete factual, referenced information on Sue Kelly's postions on GLBT issues. I believe these positions will be of interest to a significant number of wikipedia readers. TO delete the factual information on her positions is to decide, a priori, that the GLBT community and their allies are not important and their interests in their politicians support or lack thereof is irrelevant. The fact that , unlike over 100+ Republican and Democratic members of Congress, she has not agreed to a nondiscrimination policiy in hiring in her own office is relevant and of interest to wikipedia readers. Similarly, the fact that she does not support the Hate Crimes Bill, again a bill with broad bi-partisan support, is a relevant fact to GLBT readers of wikipedia and their families. jacklk

Cowman109, Thanks for stepping in here to moderate. Actually, the edit war was far more than just this one bill. Jjetski was systematically deleting all references to Congresswoman Kelly's positions of interest to GLBT people. I am glad that at least some of the information was permitted to stand in the last go-round.

With regards to the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act (aka the hate crimes bill), the bill had over 155 cosponsors on both sides of the aisle. Sue Kelly stands out amongst her colleagues in not supporting this bi-partisan legislation. This information would be of interest to GLBT members of her district and their families and friends.

Additionally, over 169 members of Congress have agreed not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in hiring in their own offices. Sue Kelly has not agreed to this. Imagine this were the 1960s and a Congressman had not agreed not to discriminate on the basis of race, wouldnt that be a fact of interest to racial minorities ? Similarly, I think the fact that while 169 members of Congress have agreed that they should treat GLBT people fairly in hiring in their own office, and Sue Kelly does not is a relevant fact.

Yes, this is "not doing something", and if the wiki community agrees that this type of thing shoould not be in an article, I am willing to abide by it. I happen to believe that lack of support for equal treatment of human beings is an important issue for poeple to know about. However, I think the remaining facts I contributed that jjetski keeps deleting should stay...

thanks Jacklk 00:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are 435 total members of the house of representatives (at least that's what United States House of Representatives tells me :) ), so that would mean that Sue W. Kelly would probably be among the majority who didn't agree to the specific bills or acts in question. Remember that biographies of living people are very sensitive issues, and Wikipedia is not a place to promote or denounce people, so mentioning a certain bill that she did not support seems irrelevant to her notability. Perhaps if a sourced statement showed she clearly denounced such bills then it may be noteworthy, but as it stands now, in my opinion (note that I have no idea who Sue W. Kelly is, and in fact I don't even vote, so I hope you consider me neutral, hehe) unless she is an outspoken opponent of such acts, I don't believe it is relevant to her notability. Others of course are welcome to weigh in their thoughts on this though. Would you object to leaving out the note of her not supporting those acts based on the above reasoning? Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 00:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and what is the other information that you say was removed from the article? I can't find any specifics in the edit history. That should probably be looked at, too. Cowman109^Talk

03:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

These lines were deleted by the same user as well, on multiple occasions: >These votes cost her the endorsement of the Human Rights Campaign, which had supported her >campaigns prior to 2004[8].Her rating on the Human Rights Campaign Congressional Scorecard is >33%.

(e.g. August 7th edit)

If these lines are deleted, then I would argue that the ratings from other organizations, such as the American Conservative Union, NARAL, Sierra Club,etc need to go as well. Either we talk about a candidates postions on ALL issues on interest to readers or NONE of them. Picking and choosing slants the presentation of the candidate towards a particular political view. I think it is fair to include such things. In this case the edit war was caused by a proponent of the Congresswoman deleting information that they feel in unflattering to the perception that she is a moderate.

I am ok with leaving out the non-support as long as all information relataed to her positions on GLBT issues is not purged . Jacklk 16:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, those aren't removed - they are at the bottom of the page and I don't see any problem with having them remain either. Cowman109^Talk 17:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] debate avoidance

I beleive this section should be kept in. there's a fully investigatable source, found at the YouTube site, and there's a valid reason to include it. A candidate who avoids public scrutiny while campaigning is worthy of note.ThuranX 17:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] End of office term?

Some users are changing Sue W. Kelly's term of office as ending in 2007, but unless I'm mistaken, has she not been defeated in the recent elections? I don't even live in New York so I'm not sure if she has or not, but whatever it is this needs to be cleared up as the article in its current state contradicts itself by stating that her term is not ending for another year even though she has been replaced by another candidate. Cowman109^Talk 04:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Terms start and end in January caz | speak 06:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay. So it is indeed proper to list her term as ending in 2007, then? Cowman109^Talk 21:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup caz | speak 23:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of RNN's YouTube links

Alright people, the RNN video links are important and not a violation of WP:EL. I read the discussion for external links and understand the policy. I would also like to mention that it is not a copyvio WP:C. Specifically I would like to point out that RNN is a real TV station and that the YouTube Links are posted by RNN as a company themselves. If you see the username 'rnntv' that is the offical RNN youtube account and if they didn't agree to post the videos on YouTube -- they wouldn't be there. RNN's run sue run clip I will also like to point out that under RNN's userpage page LISTS the clip that was most recentally edited out as 'faviorated'. I believe that the only thing we can assume here is that RNN has looked at the clip and decided to not repost their own version of the same clip. MrMacMan 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe the clip that has the empty chair posted by RNN is better here but whatever, same info. Nevertheless I hope that just because the footage isn't on their site changes your view. MrMacMan 01:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)