Talk:John E. Sweeney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

John E. Sweeney is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. You can help by editing this article. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles.

Contents 1 Lobbyist contributions 2 Information removed from campaign article 3 NPOV dispute 4 College degree 5 Domestic incident 6 NPOV

[edit] Lobbyist contributions

In case the Post-Star link (which seemed available only via Google cache) vanishes, I want to post the information here: John Broughton 22:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

A comparison of the guest list with Sweeney's campaign finance records on file with the Federal Election Commission showed seven guests who contributed to Sweeney's campaign in 2005. Contributions after Jan. 1 are not required to be reported until April 15. Contributions are as follows: Angela Sparks, vice president Energy East Corp., Saratoga Springs, $1,000; Geoff Gleason, a former Sweeney chief of staff now with The Livingston Group, a consulting firm that specializes in university and museum clients, Arlington, Va., $3,300; Matthew Trant, The National Group, Bethesda, Md., $1,000; William Teator, owner Capitol Advocates, Falls Church, Va., $3,100; Shawn Smeallie, managing director AIG, Alexandria, Va., $2,000; Brad Card, a former Sweeney chief of staff now with the Dutko Group, a lobbying firm that specializes in health care, homeland security and education, $1,000; Timothy Powers, consultant with Powers Strategies, Waterford, Va., $1,000.

[edit] Information removed from campaign article

I removed the following from the campaign article, because it clearly doesn't belong there. Other stuff I removed from that article HAS been added to this one. I'm not adding the stuff below because I'm not sure it's really that newsworthy; I note it hear for future reference and possible discussion. John Broughton 01:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

EANY gave Sweeney was given a D for his opposition to the EPA's requirement of GE to Dredge PCBs from the Hudson. http://20trueblue.blogspot.com/2006/06/sweeney-ge-and-toxic-homes.html Recently, he walked out of a vote on raising the minimum wage (which he claims he supports) to announce that he wants to block funds to Libya until it pays $2 million more to families in addition to the $8 million already paid in reparations for Pan Am Flight 103. [1]. He stands by his vote to attack Iraq. And spends a lot of time working on issues like Horse Slaughter [2], [3] and Steroids [4], [5]. Sweeney does not have an exit plan for Iraq, he supports Bush's views on Iraq http://20trueblue.blogspot.com/2006/06/sweeney-parrots-bushs-talking-points.html and he voted for the Republican vote not to establish a timeline for victory [6].

[edit] NPOV dispute

This article is definitely slanted. There is no balance in the "congressional report cards," which only report scores from liberal outlets, and nearly the entire article is devoted to discussion of controversy using weasel words. - RPIRED 17:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed anything in the "controversies" section that appeared to me to be a "weasel word". I would appreciate your pointing out any such words that remain, or acknowledging that the language is now NPOV.

As for the charge that the article is slanted, I hope you're not arguing that wikipedia editors are responsible for balance when an article is relatively short (as is this one). Because if you are, you're wrong - it's demanding enough to require wikipedia editors to write clearly, use NPOV language, and provide sources, let alone strive for "balance" - something that is clearly subjective in any case.

I also hope you're not arguing that the article should be SHORTENED. The way to achieve balance is to ADD information - reliable, notable information. For example, why don't you find some report scores from conservative outlets, and add those? And add info on any notable legislation that Sweeney has been responsible for (not just sponsored or voted for, please), or Congressional hearings he has directed, or something else that adds to the picture of his role as Congressman (other than a list of earmarks that he might claim responsibility for). Or add other accomplishments or interesting things in his life outside of his Congressional career.

And if you don't have the time to make useful additions, please don't blame others who DID for not adding informaition that you think is out there that would provide the balance you think the article is missing. John Broughton 18:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You're making some awfully strange assumptions. I haven't requested that it be SHORTENED, just that it be BALANCED. No, I don't have time to make many useful additions, but I noticed that the article was unbalanced and wanted to alert those who do make additions to the state of the article. Go read WP:AGF before you jump on me, please. - RPIRED 01:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've apparently been in too many discussions with newbies (which you're not, I realize) in which they are shocked, just shocked, that so much negative information is posted about someone they think is wonderful (Bob Ney comes to mind immediately), and feel that stuff needs to come out to achieve balance. John Broughton 12:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it not relevant that people have been prosecuted for the same actions John Sweeney did in Florida in 2000?

[edit] College degree

I removed the following text from the article, which comments on Sweeney's college degree: (however, the prolific programmer found his biography contradicts this)

This comment should have posted to this page (talk/discussion), not put into the article. Now that I've moved it here, my analysis:

• Sweeney's biography say that Sweeney graduated from that Russell Sage College. What "prolific programmer" found was that the [home page of Russell Sage College], which he links to, shows only women. So there seems a contradiction.

• Click on the "About Sage" link, and the page says: The Sage Colleges is an independent private institution of higher education comprised of three colleges: Russell Sage College, a comprehensive, undergraduate college for women in Troy, NY; Sage College of Albany, a co-educational undergraduate college of applied studies in Albany, NY; and Sage Graduate School, operating on both campuses and offering applied master’s and doctoral degrees.

• And what the wikipedia article says is that Sweeney graduated from Sage College of Albany. Follow that wikilink, and you find 941 students are enrolled at the college, and it shares 160 faculty members with Russell Sage College. 74% of the student body is female.

• So Sweeney's biography (on his campaign website) seems to be wrong - he presumably graduated from the Sage Colleges (the collection of three colleges), not the Russell Sage College - the one that is all-women. But that's his problem, not wikipedia's. John Broughton 20:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this still should be noted somewhere public -- ie the wikipedia entry. HasanDiwan 23:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You're saying that something pretty close to a typo on a campaign bio should be in a wikipedia article? (It's a typo, not a deliberate distortion, as far as I know.) Why would a minor mistake be something noteworthy enough to go into a wikipedia article? John Broughton 08:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Who died and made you be-all end-all of the wikipedia biography on Mr Sweeney? He lied about where he went to school. At my employer, a "typo" like this would earn me a dismissal. It bloody well should be visible. HasanDiwan 21:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the school is incorrect in his official bio too, so it's worth mentioning. I've mentioned it.

Please do NOT change the article to say that Sweeney "lied", or that there is an attempt to "mislead", or anything similar. That would be a negative statement, which MUST be sourced. If you can find a reputable source (e.g., newspaper) that comments on this, you can quote that. (Feel free to email his opponent's campaign manager; if they want to make an issue of it, then presumably it WILL get some publicity.) Otherwise, I think I've said just about everything that can be said without violating Wikipedia:NOR. John Broughton | Talk 17:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Domestic incident

Here's the report. Another story in NY Daily News (via Talking Points Memo). Billbrock 04:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I'm the person who added the "domestic incident" section. And yes, I'm (personally) glad that Sweeney lost. But as currently written, the article is nowhere near NPOV. True & verifiable isn't sufficient; presentation must also be balanced. When s/o is a lying sack of s***, let the facts speak for themselves; don't editorialize in an encyclopedia article. Billbrock 10:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the NPOV is kind of obvious here:

"On November 7, 2006, John Sweeney was defeated by Kirsten Gillibrand. His failure to debate Kirsten Gillibrand and the national anti-war movement added to his defeat."

While I'm sure Sweeney fought hard in his campaign, this little tidbit belongs in the RNC newsletter and not in an encyclopedia. I'm sure every race for public office involves a hard-fought campaign by the loser and it's adds absolutely no new information. The second sentence simply adds to the NPOV and it looks smashingly similar to what was said about the race in the NY Republican Party newsletter. Don't plagarize.

This is a wiki. You can fix things yourself. I just removed that sentence.

On a larger topic, I'm going to remove the POV tag. If someone wants to put it back, that's okay if he/she explains on this page exactly what specific problems are in the article that make it POV. Specifics are absolutely necessary - we're not mind-readers here. -- John Broughton ^(♫♫) 17:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)