Talk:Raj Bhakta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Raj Bhakta article.
Article policies
WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article...
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
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.


who post this guys compain statement here? Wiki suppose to post fact, not what his "idealized" congress should looks like, this is not a place for compain ads.--69.149.61.80 01:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

At this time, this merely states the facts that he has made these "campaign promises". As long as NPOV is maintained (i.e. "Raj claims he will..." and not simply "Raj will..."), this remains an encyclopedic entry about a political candidate. 71.162.141.213 01:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Move to Raj Peter Bhakta? 71.162.141.213 03:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This article reads like a campaign ad. It really needs some work. --Phoenix Hacker 03:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've corrected all the NPOV violations I could find without doing a rewrite. This article could use more verifiable information. 71.162.141.213 03:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I just took information from his campaign page. I apologize for some statements that are political instead of fact. I tried to clean it up as best I could. I noticed his name is getting into the press here in Philadelphia more, so more information is coming out almost daily. --Ryanthedon 16:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Raj is scheduled to appear as a guest on The Daily Show, hopefully some information can be verified from that appearance. 71.162.141.213 06:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I helped add some citations so I removed the cleanup tag. If anyone sees anything I missed feel free to edit or add the tag back on. --Ryanthedon 22:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I am confused as to what needs to be "wikified." Please people edit this as they see fit. I am just adding news as I read about him in the local papers here in Northeast Philly. --Ryanthedon 22:00 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Bhakta also spammed my blog. He appears to regard any website as a tool for self-promotion. 207.22.18.166 00:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, should have signed that last while logged in. GMcGath 00:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly guys why are you pushing the DUI's, I understand the are facts and he did do it but both cases were dismissed. They just seem like moot points. Ryanthedon 20:13 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I live in Philadelphia, I am editing the site because I see Raj in the news and post the news stories I read like I said before. If you guys really hate Raj so much take it somewhere else, this isn't the place to attack someone's integrity. This site is meant to be a constantly updating encyclopedia, based on facts. Let us be civil human beings and respect Wikipedia for what it is, a forum of fact. Ryanthedon 20:24 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Facts include negative ones, such as arrests, and are worthy of inclusion. The fact that someone made this into a lengthy article, including considerable amounts of campaign material, justifies equal thoroughness in the less attractive facts. On the other hand, items based on gossip columns (for instance, that "inappropriate campaigning" item) don't belong here unless better researched. But if a fact is well-supported, its negative reflection on the subject's integrity, isn't a reason to omit it. Bhakta's probably antagonized a number of people with his comment spamming of blogs; that's reason to watch out for what he says -- but we still have to hold to Wikipedia's best standards. GMcGath 19:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you GMcGath that the DUI should be on there, the very reason I didn't take it off. It is a fact, I am not disputing that. I was more referring to what you aptly stated in the inappropriate campaigning section. That was what I meant about attacking one's integrity with conjecture. Ryanthedon 20:52 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Inappropriate campaigning

I vehemently disagree with your assertion that the story about the church campaigning is a "gossip". It is reported news from the City's most respected newspaper. You have extensively excerpted "news" from Stu Bykofsky (a "gossip" columnist for the Daily News) so you are using "gossip" as news when the story is favorable to you, but rejecting "gossip" as "conjecture" when it does not suit your political goals. Don't be a hypocrite!

Oh come now fellas lets be civil about this. I am not being a hypocrite, I agree Bykofsky is a gossip/opinion columnist but what he had in his column was just an event, nothing opinion. The column regarding the carnival has unsubstantiated claims. If there were interviews from both sides regarding the issue that would be news. That piece was just someone writing about what they thought the issue was. Ryanthedon 04:12 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The article does dodge the issue, in that it doesn't state why the church was so insistent against him campaigning on their property: it is inappropriate for a church to endorse a candidate. Allowing him and nobody else to campaign could be perceived as an endorsement, and then the church has the IRS to deal with. It looks like fair reporting to me. —C.Fred (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The text of the report is hardly reference-quality material. Phrases like "press-the-flesh/kissing-babies/autographing fuss" and "apple-pie photos" aren't exactly the mark of an objective reporter. GMcGath 20:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding The Hill Article

Bruceberry please The Hill article is not a verifiable article. Once again this is pure conjecture that is based on rumor. The witness is the chief of staff of his opponent, not the best source of information. Ryanthedon 14:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How many stories are you going to try and bury about your candidate? This one is again from a respected DC newspaper and the Bhakta campaign had the opportunity to present its position on the story (and chose not to). Bruceberry

I am not trying to bury it. This is just conjecture and rumor based on the Chief of Staff from the Allyson Schwartz campaign. The spokesman from the Bhakta campaign stated it clearly, look at the source. This isn't news. Ryanthedon

Maybe you should look at the source again. Neither witness is identified as the "Chief of Staff from the Allyson Schwartz campaign." Daniel McElhatton offered a response to the allegation made by one witness. Of course, McElhatton isn't "Chief of Staff from the Allyson Schwartz campaign," either. He's chief of staff for Schwartz's DC office. Such sloppy fact-checking is typical for your campaign (please spare us denials that you're working for Raj). Did you write the flyer that defamed a former Philadelphia mayoral candidate? Looking italian 02:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Guys come on this is getting out of hand. I am just trying to make the page genuine and encyclopedia quality. No I don't work for the Raj Bhakta campaign. I just live in Philadelphia. I apologize I just meant the guy was Congresswoman Schwartz's Chief of Staff like you said. But you have to admit that is a little fishy for the democratic aide to be saying that as the witness. Ryanthedon 06:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for "warts and all" disclosures on these candidates. As above with the church visits, because that could also show some unfamiliarity with tax law, that story was relevant. I concede that the article in "The Hill" was just down the slope and into the realm of gossip—or at any rate, outside the realm of encyclopedia-worthy sources. —C.Fred (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please indicate why this is not newsworthy: In the know Reality candidate gets a little too real at Poste

Raj Bhakta was spotted out on Friday night at D.C.’s Poste bar in the Hotel Monaco with several friends and indeed the former “Apprentice” star looked as though he was feeling no pain. A House Democratic aide witnessed the candidate, who is challenging Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.) this fall, at the bar at midnight.

Bhakta was apparently feeling patriotic, this being Washington and all. The aide saw the candidate standing on a chair and singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic (at least he wasn’t whistling Dixie). He also heard Bhakta refer to his opponent as “that liberal bitch.”

He told a second witness, “I don’t give a shit about the campaign.”

Daniel McElhatton, Schwartz’s chief of staff, did not take kindly to his boss being referred to as a female dog: “It’s an insulting and disgusting comment to women and men everywhere. With his two prior incidents of being arrested for drunk driving and now this, it’s clear that he should consider getting some professional help. He’s simply not fit to be a member of Congress.”

Bhakta spokesman Matt Archbold did not confirm or deny the incident: “You’ve got to look at the source too,” he said, referring to the Democratic aide.

In April Bhakta admitted to two DUIs — one outside Boston in 1997, the other in Vail, Colo., in 2004. “I am deeply sorry and ashamed for my behavior,” he said at a press conference after reports of his 1997 surfaced on the Smoking Gun website. “Everyone makes mistakes. These were big mistakes. It won’t happen again, and I ask for understanding and forgiveness.”

After the 1997 incident, a judge ordered Bhakta to attend an alcohol education program and pay a $30 fine. Earlier this year, Bhakta said he still drinks occasionally, but that he doesn’t have a problem. Bruceberry

I am sorry Bruceberry I am only complying with the Wikipedia Project on Biographies of Living Persons. This is not important to the article. It is gossip and the source is not objective. Keep in mind, this is an encyclopedia article. We must recognize that when editing this article or any article on this website. This isn't a forum for posting negative news, unless widely sourced, about a public person as Wikipedia has stated. Ryanthedon 03:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Background

I am citing the campaign website for information regarding the biography of the subject. There is nothing in the Background section of what I posted that would be anything but factual. This is just the history and background of Raj Bhakta nothing more. It is right to assume that personal websites are primary sources, according to Wikipedia. I am not posting anything that is biased and unverifiable, just information from a primary source. Ryanthedon 03:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calling For Deletion of Entire Article

I believe that this article is so fraught with information that is either fictitious or fraudulent that it should be deleted. "Ryanthedon" insists he is not part of the Bhakta campaign, yet if you go to the campaign website and blog, posts are made on behalf of the campaign by "Ryan D" of "Team Raj". Please stop insulting our intelligence and degrading the quality of Wikipedia. Bruceberry

There is nothing on here that is against Wikipedia policy. It is a biography of a political candidate. I am trying to be civil about all of this Bruceberry. What in this article is fictitious? Wikipedians on this page along with myself have made sure and taken their time to source this article. You are being ridiculous and Wikipedia is not the place for this. It is outrageous to delete an article for a political candidate who is a major party nominee in a national election. Do you want to delete Ned Lamont's article too? Wikipedia is not the place to target individuals one does not like. Ryanthedon 13:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that as a "political candidate who is a major party nominee in a national election" you in fact have a heightened responsibility not to turn Wikipedia into yet another vehicle for your campaign by filling the page with information that is not subject to verification, while regularly deleting information not favorable to your employer, Mr. Bhakta. Was it against Wikipedia policy when you deleted all references to Mr. Bhakta's DUIs until others repeatedly cried foul? Or when you deleted articles from the Hill and the Philadelphia Inquirer? Or how about when your candidate "spam blogged" the Wikipedians you now seek to protect? If the President of the United States was regularly abusing Wikipedia for the purpose of his campaign and at the expense of the greater good of Wikipedia, I'd be calling foul, too. Bruceberry

I have read over this article, the cited sources and other souces you guys have mentioned. I have also read over comments here, Ryanthedon, GMcGath and others have been defending neutrality and proper sources as of late. I understand your point that everything needs to be out there for people to read, however Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. Also Bruceberry the DUI should be there but I don't believe they need a seperate section, maybe in the background information. Other candidates, with the exception of high profile offenses, have a very small note on offenses. These are private matters that have been made public and I believe as Wikipedia that if the person in question, Mr. Bhakta, has admitted to them and has apologized, then the matter should be included but not as a seperate section. These sections usually warrant a long, notable controversy or event in the persons life, not this DUI. However I do believe it should be in there since there are major sources (i.e. MSNBC). The other users have argued against the Hill articles and the other gossip/opinion columns. They are correct, these have no business on a Wikipedia page until a primary source cites the information provided. I understand your plight Bruceberry but I have noticed other political officials and even candidates, such as Mr. Bhakta, the information that is on there is very biographical. This article I think doesn't need to be deleted, I think that request is a little harsh. Personally speaking, I think this article should be up as long as his opponents page is up for fairness sake. Just joining Wikipedia now is a new experience and this is one of the first articles for me to read after searching for Raj on Google. I read over a couple of other political individuals for references here on Wikipedia. I hope to be of service for an unbiased viewpoint on this issue because I really like the open and free discussion of topics, especially political. Good luck and I hope that this page stays up for sake of free discussion and political fairness. Lieutenantpage 15:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The efforts that have been made to supress Bhakta's documented business failures, arrests, and recently reported drunken outbursts at a D.C. bar suggest that it might be in the best interests of all parties for this Wikipedia article to vanish. Bhakta's campaign benefits by having their candidate's questionable background hidden from further scrutniy, and everyone else benefits by any vestiges of what could be considered a campaign brochure being removed from Wikipedia. 208.58.32.92 05:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The efforts are unsuccessful, and they will never be successful - so it's not a big deal. WilyD 11:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Result Notice

This article was the subject of an AfD discussion closed on 20 August 2006. The result was Keep. Xoloz 18:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirecting "Horse's Ass"?

This is childish and immature. I hope an administrator monitors this site a little closer. It is an encyclopedia article, again, not for a negative point of view. Lieutenantpage 14:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Administrators don't monitor this site. Editors do. You're an editor, found it and corrected it. For better or worse, it's working exactly as it's supposed to. WilyD 15:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If administrators monitor anything, it's warnings. Why didn't you also warn the editor who made the vandalizing move? I just put {{mp2-n}} on the user's page, a caution against malicious page moves. —C.Fred (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh ok thank you I apologize, I am new. Lieutenantpage 16:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Related Issues Regarding Drunk Driving

Some of the debate in the history comment section of the article has lately revolved around properly sourced information that generally portrays Bhakta as being an irresponsible drunk driver. Given his desire to be in a position of leadership at the Federal level of the U.S. government, citing Bhakta's actions *seem* like a partisan effort to smear his character. However, it's one thing for Bhakta to guzzle one drink after another and in so doing endanger his *OWN* life and health, but it's quite a different matter when a drunken Bhakta unsteadily stumbles into his car and proceeds to drive it on public roads endangering the life and health of *OTHERS*. Regardless of whether Bhakta were running for office, he is a "celebrity" by his own admission, and therefore his activities will be the subject of public praise, ridicule, and discussion. --216.164.159.128 16:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fine and belongs - there's nothing to worry about. Campaign staffers or general supports will mess up the articles for politicians. It's an easy revert then. WilyD 19:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have tied several times to make both minor and more sunstantive changes to this article. It is apparently under the most strict supervision by some member who wishes to portray only negative news about Mr. Bhakta. Less than flattering facts should be part of an article, however they should not dominate as they do. If any change is attempted to be made, it is reverted almost within secords. Whomever is not allowing any changes to be made if, in effect, a spammer and should be blocked.

  • The information is verifiable and notable. If you're concerned the tone is too negative, why not find some positive or neutral verifiable facts that can be used to enhance the article. The main reason the article takes a supposedly negative tone is that this is the information that's been made available. The reason it's closely watched is because it's known to attract disruptive editors. Regardless of the quality of edits (and largescale blanking is not a quality edit) the edits being introduced also made large parts of the article non-functional. The reasoning for reverting is pretty clear. If you're concerned about the content, why not look for a third opinion? WilyD 22:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)