Jump to content

Talk:Cory Booker/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

NYT Profile

I removed the New York Times profile, all the information in it is presented in other parts of the article and it creates a needless extra section.--Jersey Devil 22:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Sholom also agrees, from the page history. Please respect what seems to be the consensus.--Jersey Devil 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreement between y'all does not constitute "consensus". But the incorporation of the data into the other subsections is a very acceptable alternative. In other words, "consensus" is the wrong word. "Appropriate", "sensible", and "reasonable" are all far more accurate. Speak English, not "Wikipedianese". WAS 4.250 01:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to add semi-colons to the list of his senior cabinet. It's painfully unreadable without them (or line breaks) --B0mbrman 09:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment from IP

Note: I'm not really sure how to edit Wikipedia. However, some of the immigrants that committed the recent triple murder in Newark had immigrated to this country legally. In fact, the adult ringleader that they pursued to Virginia is here on a green card. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.18.243 (talk) 15:01, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, so how do you propose the paragraph on it be phrased or what additional content be placed in the section?--Jersey Devil 15:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Street Fight Documentary.jpg

Image:Street Fight Documentary.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


"Conan O'Brien feud"

This section needs a citation or two. The one and only "reference" listed is an episode of a television show. This television show tells only part of the story related in the article. Where are the sources for the rest of it? Relgif (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this is a pretty serious accusation and if true, paints Booker in a very bad light, so either give proper sources or take it down. Philosopher2king (talk)

WP:UNDUE

A mock feud between Booker and a TV personality does not merit inclusion in this biography. Absolutely nothing came of it. I thought about deleting the information on Zuckerberg, but didn't, as it resulted in money aiding the city of Newark. It may still be UNDUE for this bio, and needs to be pared down at least, but it could stay.

As for the Meet the Press interview, that edit was terribly POV. One appearance on a Sunday talk show where he contradicts Obama's message is again not worthy of being added unless you can demonstrate some lasting notability of the event, which will certainly not be known for some time. More likely than not, this event will fade into the ether. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with M on undue emphasis on mock feud. Trimmed.[1]208.78.67.43 (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Who made you God, Muboshgu? The O'Brien story is interesting and has been up here for a long time. Please don't delete it again unless a lot of people show up here to agree with you. Same goes for the Meet the Press incident, which is the most widely-discussed incident thus far of Booker's career. Who are you to predict it will fade into the ether? And the edit is not POV, it presents both sides. Please leave it unless others achieve consensus that it doesn't belong. Michael2127 (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu, in that there is undue weight for what is not a very major incident in Booker's career. It may be worth mentioning in two or three sentences at most, not the blow-by-blow account we see here. I also agree it will likely not stand the test of time as a major incident.
Lastly, I believe the "who made you God" comment is out of line; WP encourages us to edit boldly, and just because the section has been up for awhile doesn't mean it should remain forever.--Chimino (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually the proper argument is WP is not a newspaper. The DNC has been in furious message control regarding this issue, but since Booker was so honest in his opinion it is going to be hard for Obama to completely kill it. Not to mention that the RNC and Romney are going to include this little bit as a rebuttal to the Obama campaign message that Bain is Bad. I can see it potentially being something that would be worth inclusion if the story continues, although I suspect that most media are going to ignore it altogether. It will probably be best included in the Obama 2012 election article because Bain is going to be a major part of Obama's campaign against Romney (so Obama said himself today). Arzel (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I think you're mixing your incidents, Arzel; this is regarding the Conan O'Brien spat, not the Romney/Obama issue...--Chimino (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Well actually it's both incidents, Chimino. And Muboshgu even proposed deleting the Zuckerberg entry, another very major part of Booker's career. Muboshgu went on an edit-happy spree and this needs to be dialed back...see my comments below. Michael2127 (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you Chimino for the most part - the blow-by-blow account of the O'Brien feud is a bit much and could certainly be edited down. Michael2127 (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Arzel, you make a fair point that perhaps this incident should also be in the 2012 election article, I'll leave that up to you. But it should DEFINITELY be part of Booker's article. It's the biggest story in the news today, despite the NATO conference, etc. THIS IS THE BIGGEST STORY OF CORY BOOKER'S CAREER. He's not exactly very well-known nationally before this - you have to have perspective. Michael2127 (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I can work to pare down the O'Brien section (I've done alot of editing on this article already). Perhaps the Romney issue should play out a bit before we add it; in that case I agre with Arzel. And I agree it may be the biggest story of his career yet...--Chimino (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Michael, Booker is pretty high profile for a mayor of a city of Newark's size. To say that his Meet the Press interview is the biggest story of his career is obvious WP:RECENTISM. This may play a role in the campaign going forward, but it may not. Frankly, I expect that it'll be forgotten by the end of the current news cycle and there's no reason to include it at all. As for Conan O'Brien, there is nothing of consequence there as far as I can tell. What does any of it have to do with him as a person? The Zuckerberg item also, what does that have to do with Booker? That has more to do with the city of Newark, as far as I can tell. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
If there's a single more notable (from a national perspective) thing that Booker's done, name it. Just name one thing. From the point of view of this article, it doesn't really matter how long this remains a major part of the election (although Romney's already cut ads featuring it, etc.) What is relevant from the perspective of this article is how much it's a part of what he's known for, and it's pretty clear that for the foreseeable future, this will be one of the foremost things people know Booker for (btw, he seems like a nice guy to me, not that that's remotely relevant.) As for Conan, I agree it's pretty borderline, should certainly be pared down. However the Zuckerberg entry should certainly remain. But personally I'd delete the second half of the Zuckerberg entry, that's not relevant to Booker at all. I guess you just have a very narrow definition for what you think is relevant. I'd prefer to include everything that's a significant, notable part of his record, and let people decide how much they want to read. Michael2127 (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The Conan section, as of 5/21, is very good in my opinion. It is important to this article because it was national attention to Cory Booker. It was probably the first national exposure to Cory Booker for most of the nation. Therefore it is important and the current level of coverage is right-on, in my opinion.Zugman (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Here's a nice recent piece on Booker that should be incorporated into this article. It mentions the Zuckerberg/Winfrey thing, which suggests that it is important enough to keep in the biography. (I think it could benefit from some rewriting to stress why it's important to Booker, since I didn't see it at first.) If this Conan thing is so important to Booker's notability, how come it isn't mentioned? Booker is notable for revitalizing one of America's worst cities, not for some stupid TV back and forth that resulted in nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Here's another. What's important to note about this one is that it was written in October 2009; the Conan thing was September-October 2009. If the Conan thing is so important to Booker, you'd think this October 2009 US News and World Report article would mention it, wouldn't you? Nary a peep. The article mentions substance, meaning what he's doing as mayor to revitalize Newark. Not some stunt that Conan used to get some laughs and ratings. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I think you both make good points. We have to remember that for most people, the info they want here is not "what PACs is he currently advising?", etc. It's more like "what was that thing w/ Conan?" or "what was that thing he said about Romney's business?" I don't mind the Conan length the way it is, people can just skip it, but if we want to make this more concise, I think the Conan thing is too long, should be more like 3 sentences. Maybe more important than the length is that it really shouldn't have its own section. It really doesn't rank as a major aspect of Booker's life, which is revitalizing a city, etc. - if anything, Meet the Press would be much more deserving of its own section. Maybe there should be a "notable events" section, that has Conan, Zuckerberg, MTP, etc.? Michael2127 (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You did a good job rewording my entry about Meet the Press, 72.86.141.159 - it's better now. And GREAT reorganization, Jerzeykydd! Michael2127 (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Just seconding Michael's "ataboys" good job!Zugman (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

So if I understand your position correctly, Michael 2127, the Bain/Obama controversy is the biggest event in Booker's national profile. But OTOH the fact that he revised his MTP statement radically the following day in a televised interview on MSNBC, and the fact that this fed into the controversy, adds nothing new whatever and was dismissed as inconsequential by everybody of sense and is so "trivial" that it "clearly" does not merit inclusion. Also would note that your explanation for deleting this new info/link has shifted; originally, you focused on the (trivial) fact that the interview was by Booker's "friend" Maddow and "widely characterized as lacking any substance". Then it was because it didn't "add anything of substance" plus the edit itself was poorly written. Then it was because the edit was "poorly-written unclear trivia [that] adds nothing", and the dreadfulness that is Rachel Maddow has been forgotten. I can see no legitimate reason for keeping info about this newsworthy interview from readers, especially since it radically alters the quoted MTP viewpoint. I'm also astounded that you would criticize the wording of my edit so harshly when its faults, whatever they might turn out to be, can hardly compare to the hyperbolic, wordy, and grossly non-neutral addition you made when you inserted this controversy on May 21. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.134.22 (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe the article should contain a blow-by-blow timeline of the controversy, and believe his responses are best left out, because they are so widely reviewed to have contained little substance. If you insist on including his responses, I'm fine with that. However, you should first mention his Youtube response since that was the more widely-noted newsworthy event. But more importantly, if we are going to include his PR response, we ABSOLUTELY MUST include the other side since the criticism of his responses was so widespread, ranging from a "hostage video" to "he didn't really say anything." That's why really the responses should just be left out of the article...but it's up to you, either leave them out, or include the widespread reaction to his response. Michael2127 (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you really not see how non-neutral your original entry was, and your attempted re-edit just moments ago? Booker issued a retraction of his criticisms on MTP and stated that the opposite of what he originally said is true; that is noteworthy. How pundits commented on his retraction is several steps removed from the controversy and probably not worth describing, in part because there was a wider range of reactions than the scorn you wish to highlight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.134.22 (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually I can see how my original entry was maybe unintentionally slightly non-neutral, that's why I let you make MAJOR edits to it and even complimented you here on the talk page. However my recent re-edits are absolutely an improvement on yours. You assert that Booker made significant retractions of the substance of his statements about private equity, however very few other people share your opinion about that. Most people, as I cited, felt the opposite: he really didn't change anything about his views (hence why it's best left out of the article) except stating that he stood by Obama and his campaign strategy. That's exactly how I laid it out - both sides, all the relevant info. Michael2127 (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I just want to point out that "72.86.134.22", who has such an ardent view of what should be said on Cory Booker's wikipedia page, just created his account TODAY and has only made edits to this page. Hmmm....Cory? is that you? Unless that was also you yesterday under the name "72.86.141.159", with a similar IP. Hmmm... Michael2127 (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Michael2127, "slightly non-neutral"? Based on your comments and your grossly unbalanced edits you're obviously bringing personal issues and a strong POV to this, which have no place. The new edit by Chimino is much more balanced, clearer, and more informative. As for your bizarre speculation about my editing history and identity...wow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.136.43 (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Michael, I attempted to write a well-rounded synopsis of the controversy, utilizing the various sources which are out there. If nothing else, the language was clearer and more concise than what was up before. I would appreciate if you'd specifically state what you do not like about the rewrite than simply reverting it. You appear to be a one-man machine in this article, whereas the rest of us are attempting to create consensus. And may I add you're a relatively new editor on Wikipedia yourself, if you want to go there...--Chimino (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Chimino, I do recognize that your intentions seem to be good, as opposed to the other anonymous user. However you failed to make a well-rounded edit because you simply edited out all criticism of Booker and made it unclear. I'll be glad to try to find a balanced compromise with you - not saying my edit is perfect, but definitely more balanced and superior to yours. Michael2127 (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Chimino, I incorporated the sentence/reference you added about how Romney used Booker's remarks as part of his campaign. That's definitely relevant. Not sure what else from your edit might usefully be added, but if you think there's more, glad to discuss it... Michael2127 (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
There are still two issues with the current version: 1) it is jumbled and confusing, with run-on sentences and points which are all over the place, and 2) poorly sourced. Op-ed pieces from Salon and the like are not verifiable sources, unlike those I inserted from main news organizations, nor are they encyclopedic.--Chimino (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, please propose any edits you'd like to make. I take issue with "jumbled and confusing", to be honest that's how I viewed your edits. Name me the run-on sentence. My points may be more "all over the place" than yours, because I tried to present both sides. My sources are also better than yours - for example, while you cite a NYT article summarizing his remarks, I link to the actual Meet the Press transcript. The Salon link is highly relevant because it is very representative of the reaction to his followup remarks. I would say the same thing about my link to Scarborough's reaction, which was probably the single most-cited reaction to his remarks...however, if you feel strongly that that sentence is gratuitous, I would frankly be ok with eliminating it in the interest of being concise. Again, please tell me specifically what else of mine you think should be removed, or what else of yours should be added. Michael2127 (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
"On May 20, 2012, Booker made controversial remarks on Meet The Press concerning attacks on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital by President Obama's campaign, for which Booker was a prominent surrogate: "this kind of stuff is nauseating to me...Stop attacking private equity." vs. "On May 20, 2012, Booker was the center of controversy over remarks made on Meet The Press which were critical of President Obama's re-election campaign, for which Booker was a surrogate. Regarding Obama's attacks on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital, Booker stated the attacks were "nauseating to me on both sides. It's nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity. Stop attacking Jeremiah Wright."
Firstly, #1 states the remarks themselves were controversial, which is POV, rather than stating his remarks generated controversy. Secondly, #1 states a partial (selective) quote, while #2 has the full quote. I will also argue #2 reads better in divided sentences, but that is semantics at this point. Finally, secondary sources are always preferable to primary sources (such at MTP script or Youtube videos)...pretty much any veteran WP editor will tell you as much.--Chimino (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. They seem very similar to me. Yours is a bit wordy, but if you like it more, I'm fine with that. Please go ahead and edit the article exactly as you've done above, just what's there. Then if you feel further edits are necessary, let's talk about them here. Michael2127 (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Done, and I will replace the Youtube link with the article which describes it (I believe it was the Star-Ledger). Also the Star-Ledger quotes those who feel Booker's statements were calculated for his financial interest; I really would rather use that to the op-ed links at the end of the second paragraph...--Chimino (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

So my intentions are not good eh Michael? But you're only slightly and unintentionally biased, you who have been fighting for days to exclude the absolutely basic info that Booker retracted his condemnation of the Obama ads, as if that were irrelevant or trivial; or failing that insisting on the "need" to insert heavy doses of editorial scorn for Booker's retraction, as if pundits' opinions really mattered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.133.249 (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Most of the second paragraph on this controversy, as it now stands, remains strongly POV. There is a good deal of sneering and insinuation (how is it relevant that Maddow is friendly with Booker?). It amounts taking an editorial stance rejecting the legitimacy of Booker's expressed change of opinion, and therefore has no place here. The original rewrite by Chimino is vastly preferable; it is factual, neutral, and conveys much more info with more important links. 72.86.133.249 (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

We really could use some additional opinions on the matter...--Chimino (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes we could. Admin needs to take a look. I really cannot see how that second paragraph as it stands can be acceptable POV. 72.86.133.249 (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, there's no reason that second paragraph should stand. See the latest discussion w/ a neutral editor on the dispute resolution page. So I'll go ahead and delete that second paragraph and if there are truly noteworthy further developments to the basic story in the future, we can edit them as needed. Michael2127 (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

And I will include one SHORT sentence summarizing Booker's response, to appease the anonymous editor, or anyone who shares his feeling that Booker's response was important. Michael2127 (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

For goodness' sakes what is wrong with you Michael? You really are a rogue editor. This is not about appeasing anybody, nor about promoting your own views. It's about presenting an accurate record of what is noteworthy. Your "SHORT sentence" is grossly inadequate for exactly the same reasons that all your previous attempts to exclude/minimize/trivialize Booker's subsequent comments have been. And this after you claimed on the discussion board that you were accepting Stradivarius' opinion that there needs to be a full summary of events. If some other user does not fix the entry to include an accurate summary of how Booker revised his comments, then I'll come back and do it myself later. 72.86.175.37 (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

My short sentence is balanced - Booker never made any claim that he retracted anything he said about private equity. I've written more than enough than needs to be said about this unimportant update to this controversy. You can either leave the sentence as is or we can delete it altogether. Michael2127 (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Yet again you're acting as if this entry is about what you want. Your vague sentence is tendentious, undocumented, an inadequate summary of what was significant about his revised comments, and insofar as it actually says anything, also misleading (he did revise his basic point, which originally was that Obama was attacking private equity as such). Your intransigence about including this obviously relevant information continues to astonish. 72.86.174.143 (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, bud, this article is not about what you want. You're the only person on the planet who thinks there was anything relevant about his followup comments, as far as I can tell. Michael2127 (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Michael, I have to agree with our anon friend on this one. Did you read the CNN article from two days ago on this? http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/22/were-cory-bookers-comments-a-slip-of-the-tongue-or-a-slick-political-move/?iref=allsearch Zugman (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree w/ him about what? I just read the CNN article, and my sentence is entirely consistent with it (without dragging it on to include pointless details.) I said firstly that Booker clarified that he stands by the Obama campaign, and I also included the fact that he did not choose to revise his basic point about not attacking private equity (which was the more widely-noted reaction to his response.) I'll add a reference to back this up. Michael2127 (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Michael, this says it all: "You're the only person on the planet who thinks there was anything relevant about his followup comments" There could not be a clearer demonstration that you are not the person to be editing this entry. 72.86.174.143 (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Obviously I was exaggerating to make a point. Alright, buddy, let's see some sources that said Booker's followup comments were majorly newsmaking beyond the extent I've already included in this article. If you want, I'll add the fact that he specifically stood behind Obama's attacks on Bain. I can't possibly imagine what other aspects you think are so important that you want to write a novel about it. Michael2127 (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The article I pointed to was primarily regarding Cory Booker's follow up comments. As a tangential theme it also seemed to argue that perhaps Cory Booker was also trying to demonstrate his willingness to act in a non-partisan manner. So it would seem that at least the anon, me and the author of that article thought that Cory Booker's follow-up comments were relevant/notable. Also I need to note here that I've not tried to follow the actual article changes. I'm only responding to what I see here on this talk page.Zugman (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Yep, check out the article (other Activities), I'm sure you'll find that I've captured his follow-up comments completely and concisely. Michael2127 (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Directory of city cabinet officials removed from article

I removed the following from the article. I don't think this list is encyclopedic. Please see WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not a directory or a list. I am adding the reference to external link, though I don't really think it's necessary.

Cabinet

His senior cabinet consists of the following members:[citation needed]

  • Modia Butler, Chief of Staff to the Mayor[1]
  • Anthony Santiago, Deputy Chief of Staff
  • Margarita Muñiz, Deputy Mayor for Neighborhood Engagement
  • Anne Torres, Office of Communications Acting Director
  • David Giordano, Senior Advisor to the Mayor
  • Hon. Julien X. Neals, Esq., Business Administrator
  • Michael E. Greene, Esq., Assistant Business Administrator
  • Adam Cruz, Assistant Business Administrator
  • Kecia Daniels, Personnel Director
  • Keith Isaac, Emergency Management Director
  • Darlene Noble, Affirmative Action Manager
  • Nelida Valentin, Newark Works Newark's One-Stop Operator Director
  • Michele Ralph-Rawls, Staff Operations Director
  • Claudia Granados, Advisor to the Mayor on Labor Relations
  • Adam Zipkin, Director & Deputy Mayor for Housing Economic Development
  • Margarita Muniz, Deputy Mayor for Community Engagement[1]
  • Anna Pereira, Corporation Counsel
  • Bari J. Mattes, Senior Advisor to the Mayor;[1]
  • W. Deen Shareef, Senior Advisor
  • L'Tanya L. Williamson, Acting Child and Family Well-being Director
  • Samuel A. DeMaio, Police Director
  • Sheila Coley, Police Chief
  • Fateen Ziyad, Fire Director
  • John Centanni, Fire Chief
  • Darlene Tate, OMB Director
  • Tonya Bryan, Chief Service Officer
  • Kecia Daniels, Human Resources Director
  • Mehdi Mohammadish, Engineer Director
  • Susan Jacobucci, Finance Director
  • James Souder, Neighborhood & Recreation Services Director
  • James Wright, Inspector General
  • Amy K. DePaul, Municipal Court Director
  • Al-Tarik Onque, Constituent Affairs Central Ward Liaison
  • Marilyn Colon, Constituent Affairs North Ward Liaison
  • Cidalia Pereira, Constituent Affairs East Ward Liaison
  • Jennifer Stone, Constituent Affairs South Ward Liaison
  • Vacant, Constituent Affairs West Ward Liaison

208.78.67.43 (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Political Positions

What are Booker's political positions? Many other politicians have such a section on Wikipedia. I have no clue what it means that Booker is an "advocate of education reform," for example. Please help clarify if you can! J1.grammar natz (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

political future?

most politicians have a future section, and booker is mentioned as a possible cabinet member for obama, governor against christie or even president in 2016, so why cant he have the section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.164.130 (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Most politicians aren't Good Article nominees, either. "Future" sections are too speculative for Wikipedia. I'm not familiar with rumors he might be appointed to the Cabinet. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cory Booker/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 16:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be the reviewer for this nomination. Over the next day or two I'll do a close edit of the article's prose, and then I'll start the checklist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Early concerns

On a first pass, it appears to me that while this article has some good material, it also has clear problems with sourcing, POV balance, and completeness. A number of statements are unsourced or sourced only to primary or unreliable sources:

  • "In addition to his crime-lowering initiatives, Booker both doubled the amount of affordable housing under development and quadrupled the amount under pre-development, and reduced the city budget deficit from $180 million to $73 million." (unsourced)
  • "These increases were cited as necessary to fix the structural financial deficit and secure a solid foundation for Newark’s future. Booker pledged to not increase taxes the following year, a promise he kept – the City of Newark did not raise taxes for the following two years. In addition, the City of Newark in 2008 and 2009 received the Government Finance Officers Associations "Distinguished Budget Presentation Award". (sourced only to city of Newark sources)
  • "He proposed Council initiatives that impacted housing, young people, law and order, and the efficiency and transparency of City Hall, but was regularly outvoted 8–1." (unsourced)
  • "In 1998, Booker won an upset victory for a seat on the Newark City Council, defeating four-term incumbent George Branch." (unsourced)
  • " However, the Booker administration and the City of Newark imposed one-day-a-month furloughs for all non-uniformed employees from July through December 2010, as well as 2% pay cuts for managers and directors currently earning more than $100,000 a year. Citing the reason for the pay cuts, Booker noted, "In 2006, we took over a city in financial crisis. We have made significant steps to address our financial future and decided that we would not balance the budget on the backs of our residents."[citation needed] Booker has reduced his own salary twice since taking office, voluntarily reducing his salary by 8% early in his first year as Mayor. As of 2011, none of Booker’s senior managers had received pay increases since taking office" (sourced only to dead City of Newark link)
  • "After Hurricane Sandy destroyed much of the shoreline areas of New Jersey and New York in late October 2012, Booker invited Newarkers still without power to eat and sleep in his home" (sourced to Huff Post)
  • "Booker’s leadership has attracted approximately $100 million in private philanthropy to the City of Newark, and a variety of nonprofits and public/private partnerships have been created and used to better the lives of Newark residents." (unsourced)
  • "The timing of Zuckerberg's donation was questioned by some as a move for damage control to his image, as it was announced on the opening day of the movie The Social Network, a film that painted an unflattering portrait of Zuckerberg." (sourced to Gawker)

Since this article is about a political figure considering a governor or US Senate run, I think it's doubly important that we have everything cited to clearly reliable sources. (That also includes the more subtly positive material about Booker's past charity work, etc.)

On a related note, the article discusses Booker's success stories at length, but gives very little space to his critics (and the lead section doesn't mention them at all). For example, he was presumably criticized by opponents in his 2010 re-election, but the article gives less information on this than on his "feud" with Conan or his commencement addresses. The section on his second term as mayor also seems incomplete, giving several anecdotes but little information on policy. The Newark Star-Ledger would probably be a good source to begin filling in these holes with.

In short, I'd say this article doesn't yet meet the Good Article criteria. There's some excellent information here, but much of the press-release material needs to be cleared out and replaced with reliable sources, citations need to be added, and political opponents and critics need a proportionate place in the article. If anyone's interested in doing this over the next week or two, I'm happy to put this on hold. Otherwise, I need to say "not yet". -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if you can please put this on hold I'd be very grateful, right now I'm wrapping up another GAR, and not to mention finals. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 05:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I'm putting it on hold for a week and then I'll look over the article again. If there's significant progress by that point, I'll keep going with the review. Otherwise, I'll fail this for now, but with no prejudice toward it being re-nominated in the future when better sourced. Whatever the case, thanks for your work on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I've sourced all the unsourced cited above, can you tell me some sections where you feel it isn't a NPOV? Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 05:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

To back up a step, I'd still like to see reliable secondary sources for many of the article's claims.
  • The "upset victory" is currently sourced to a college press release.[2]
  • The paragraph "On October 16, 2006, Booker formally introduced" is still sourced only to primary sources associated with Booker. The source you added is a private company that says on that very page that the City of Newark is their client; this isn't an independent source.
  • The sentence "In addition to his crime-lowering initiatives, Booker both doubled the amount of affordable housing under development and quadrupled the amount under pre-development, and reduced the city budget deficit from $180 million to $73 million" appears to be sourced only to a speech by Booker--I didn't see it in the NJ.com story, which actually focuses on a controversial tax raise and cuts to other services, noting that these will likely to lead to public controversy.
  • "Booker has reduced his own salary twice since taking office, voluntarily reducing his salary by 8% early in his first year as Mayor. As of 2011, none of Booker’s senior managers had received pay increases since taking office.
  • "In April 2008, the Newark Charter School Fund was established to provide grants in support of Newark’s charter schools to support a successful public school system in Newark" is sourced only to the fund's own website; it's also not clear what the connection to Booker is. A secondary source explaining would be helpful here.
  • "The City of Newark also works with GreenSpaces, which has committed $40 million toward the largest park expansion initiative in over a century, with a total of 21 park construction and rehabilitation projects affecting every ward." -- the source given here doesn't seem to mention GreenSpaces, or support the claims of this sentence.
  • "To support the Newark Police Department, the Newark Police Foundation was established in 2006. It provides funding and other services to the Police Department and has had a significant impact on the NPD’s ability to pay for necessary resources that would otherwise not be readily funded through the department’s budget." --needs secondary source, and an explanation of its connection to Booker.
  • The suspicions raised about the timing of Zuckerberg's donation are still sourced only to Gawker, not a reliable secondary source.
  • For POV concerns, the article discusses Booker's success stories at length, but gives very little space to his critics (and the lead section doesn't mention them at all). For example, he was presumably criticized by opponents in his 2010 re-election, but the article gives less information on this than on his "feud" with Conan or his commencement addresses. It appears that criticism even from the article's current sources has been avoided by past editors. The editor who drew on the Time piece gives plenty of detail of crime-fighting successes, but doesn't mention the criticisms of Booker's crime-fighting focus by Amiri Baraka or others included in the article; the editor who drew on the New York Times piece mentions that Booker holds office hours to meet with constituents, but doesn't mention the article's main focus, which is that these sessions seem to be running into problems. A ruling this week that Booker acted improperly still needs to be included in the article.[3] At times the article appears press-release-like in tone (not surprising since a few bits were written from press releases): "a promise he kept", etc. It doesn't seem to me that the article in its current state is the kind of balanced picture Wikipedia requires; I'd suggest doing a bit of research to find the main policy differences and criticisms by his political opponents. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Another small bit of information that needs to be removed or sourced: the categories attached to the article make various claims about his ethnic background, while the text simply refers to his parents as black. These categories should correspond to sourced text in the article or be removed. Sorry I didn't think to check this sooner. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Not listing article at this time

It's been a week and not much headway appears to be being made on the sourcing and POV problems noted above. I'm closing this review for now and recommending that this not yet be listed as a Good Article. I do hope editors will continue revising this one, however, and that it can be listed soon. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cory Booker/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PrairieKid (talk · contribs) 00:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Everything I still had trouble with is in bold.

To go over the criteria:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The name "Booker" comes up way to often, particularly in the Early life, education, and career. Some sentences give do not flow (For ex: "On May 14 Booker lost winning 47% to James' 53%."), and there are a few (for lack of a better term) redundant sentences. (For ex: "Booker assumed office as Mayor of Newark on July 1, 2006, the third consecutive black Mayor since 1970." As in, all mayors in the last 45 years have been black, or only the last three since 1970...?) It just needs a little touching up. GAs are not perfect.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    References are good enough for me.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    I think it gives unneeded weight to the Other activities section. Giving a greater amount of writing to his support of Obama than to his 2014 senate run (granted, that is just starting up) seemed a little off to me.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Again, fix problems with the weight, and it will be A-OK!
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No problems here.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Appears to all be in order.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Just barely does not meet criteria. A few minor changes will get it there. Please leave a message at my talk page when you are finished with the edits. If they are not done within 7 days, I will consider the article withdrawn. PrairieKid (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I still don't think it makes it. The examples I gave as to the flow and redundant sentences were not the only instances. I would suggest skimming the article through- if you ever need to stop and reread a passage or sentence, see if it is possible to simply rewrite the passage instead. Further, the weight is still off-balance. It is better. Don't worry- I'm giving you a few days to work on it. Take your time to ensure it is at the quality it can be at. PrairieKid (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
OK- I'd say that does it. Cory Booker- welcome to the GA list. PrairieKid (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Senate Campaigns

Howdy- I noticed that an editor recently condensed the two senate campaign sections into one, which is completely understandable. However, I do think it is better to have two and to have all of the removed information restored. In order to avoid conflict (or worse, an edit war), I wanted to open discussion to see what would be best. PrairieKid (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for bring this up instead of just reverting! I believe the 2013 election should be the only one on the page so far because he never announced if he would run for Senate in 2014, he just launched an exploratory committee. And whether or not he will run in 2014 is highly dependent on the results of the 2013 election (which he has announced he will run for). Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 20:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I feel that, whether or not he has announced, we should include some of the information (possibly under one "senate campaigns" section) in the article. PrairieKid (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
How do you feel now? I've added more info on his original intentions, Frank Lautenberg, and the special election. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 23:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Looking good. As both elections move on, I'll continually add relevant information. Thank you for compromising! PrairieKid (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

New section on Waywire

I added some well-cited material on Booker's association with the tech startup. After re-reading my edits, the section looks a bit accusatory. It does appear the Murdoch papers (as usual) are fishing for scandal; I chose not to add them as sources. Could someone clean this up a bit? I'm satisfied with my sourcing, but again, that's my view. Could somebody else please look? Thanks. BusterD (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the sentences about Zucker and the CEO quitting stray off focus from Booker as is. The Zucker info could be relevant, but you'd need to explain more about it (Zucker is quitting because there may be a conflict of interest with his dad being the CNN head). - Maximusveritas (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Gayle King Picture

Why is this picture here?

Is it to showcase the subject with a female? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.22.254 (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead Citations

So, an IP has continually reverted edits showing that the lead is properly cited, saying that most of the 2nd paragraph lacks citations. The IP has broken the 3RR already, but I still wanted to begin this discussion to see if the article was properly cited, as I feel it is. Thoughts? PrairieKid (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the IP is faking ignorance because he is blatantly POV. A simple search through the page would yield all the results he's looking for. I also believe this attempt at "diplomacy" is useless, as we all know this is a simple case of vandalism. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 23:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

This isn't vandalism or diplomacy. please go through each link and see if they meet wikipedia's objectivity requirements. i love wikipedia and use it all the time. this article is not up to wikipedia's standards. sorry that you'd rather blame my POV than to do the harder work of thinking about what I'm saying. 209.162.18.52 (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, Grammarxxx. I began a discussion here to report the user for vandalism. He (or she) has now removed the content, a clear move of vandalism. I feel that I can revert (for the 3rd time on this page) for the purpose of restoring content. PrairieKid (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I will continue editing until the page is locked and a formal vote is taken. Sorry, but I don't trust either one of you to be objective stewards of wikipedia. 209.162.18.52 (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Going down the list- Drug dealing and hunger strike are cite 13, food stamps are cite 63, driveway thing are cites 53 and 54, cite 56 covers Sandy housing, proposing is cite 57, dog is cite 58 and 59, and fire is cite 55. Any other questions? It is all cited, the citations are completely accurate. When I reviewed this article to become a good article, I was very thorough when checking the cites, so I knew they were there. Now, we know for sure. PrairieKid (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Review those cites and see how many of them are based on Tweets sent by Cory Booker. Maybe they happened, maybe they did not. But they are not wikipedia-worthy citations. 209.162.18.52 (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
(Wrote that before reading IP's comment...) First off, that is NOT how we deal with edits we don't like. We do NOT continue reverting just because we disagree. Second, Grammarxxx has over 4000 edits (as shown here) and I have nearly 1500. (here) We are experienced, we know what we're doing and it is insulting for you to say otherwise. ON TOP OF THE FACT that other editors have also reverted your edits. Will you argue that the 5 of us, with a combined edit count probably in the range of 20,000 are wrong compared to an IP who admits their own imfamiliarity with Wikipedia. You have now insulted as, broken so many rules and still won't recognize that you were wrong in the first place. I really try to stay passive (and I'm sorry that I'm not) but you've definitely pissed me off a little. PrairieKid (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Please review citation 62 and 63. They are both Cory Booker saying what the article says Cory Booker did. That is not objective under wikipedia standards. Sorry that I pissed you off. All I want is wikipedia to be useful. When I'm done pissing you off, I think we'll have a stronger article here. 209.162.18.52 (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

So, you've gone from nothing being cited to one thing having a slightly questionable citation, while you continue to revert content. Those two citations state as a sure fact that Booker underwent the food stamp challenge. The only part he wrote in cite 63 is him explaining why he did it. Cite 62 is him announcing his attention to do so, which simply compliments 63. PrairieKid (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I should give you a heads up to other recent wikipedia edits of mine. 1) A statement on Richard Nixon's page saying that he is not a crook, with a citation of a video of Richard Nixon saying he is not a crook. 2) A statement on George W. Bush's page saying that he was justified in invading Iraq because the government had weapons of mass destruction, with a citation of a video of George W. Bush saying that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Mext, I should probably do something to George Orwell's page. 209.162.18.52 (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, you are supposed to be an objective editor. Now you concede that "facts" presented in the article and highlighted in the lede are "slightly questionable." Not sure what that says about you as an editor, or the quality of wikipedia articles. 209.162.18.52 (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Public Image

Booker has an image as a reformist fighting against corruption in the Black community. This should be duly noted, as should his pragmatism on political issues.

Go ahead and add it if you wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.70.143 (talk • contribs)


How about the fact that there are accusations that he doesnt even live in Newark. He rent or owns an apartment there but probably lives outside the city, perhaps New York. Read the article below http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5rNnNIV9oKI http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/14/neighbors-cory-booker-never-lived-in-newark/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.202.254 (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be little other than anecdotal accusations by political opponents as this subsequent article seems to make clear. I suppose it could be mentioned in that context, but I'm not sure if it's notable enough. - Maximusveritas (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Article needs to be updated

Cory Booker won the Senate election. I'm not sure what the normal protocol is when politicians change status, so can someone with more experience in this area please incorporate this information into the article? If you need a source, take the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/nyregion/booker-wins-senate-race-in-new-jersey.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Thanks, MidnightRequestLine (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Booker

Who wrote all this? Obviously some paid political group--Why didn't you just write: Jesus = Mr. Booker.....He has lived this long, and did NOTHING but good things? Great things? UNbelieveable things ONLY? Whew ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.200.85 (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Annoying comma in the personal life section

Hello great maintainers of this article -

Could someone who is able to edit this article please move the following comma?

"On his 2013 Senate campaign, when asked if he is gay Booker, announced he would refuse to answer, insisting "what does it matter if I am?" and that he would focus his campaign on major issues." Clarkatim (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Advertisement?

The first two paragraphs of this page are written like an advertisement. There are no sources and it sounds ridiculous. I'm not sure what gives, and I've lost my login information.

Thanks 50.26.169.212 (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. I think you mean the second and third paragraphs of the lead section. If so, please propose wording to replace what's there now. Keep in mind that the lead section doesn't have to be sourced if it is merely summarizing sourced content from the rest of the article (which is what it ideally would do). Rivertorch (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, we have to at least mention his publicity stunts in the lead, since they're his claim to fame outside New Jersey. Being internet-famous is part of his character. But the lead doesn't mention much of his actual work as mayor, so we should cut down on the number of stunts mentioned and talk about more policy. If he does anything interesting as a U.S. Senator, it'll eclipse that earlier material. —Designate (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the lede could do with a rewrite as it seems disjointed and overly detailed on the stunts and recent election. I'll take a crack at trimming what's there now and adding a summary of other notable material from the article. - Maximusveritas (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Cory Booker not the first African American Senator since Obama

On Cory Booker's wiki page it states "He is the first African-American U.S. Senator from New Jersey and the first African-American to be elected to the Senate since Barack Obama in 2004." However, this is misleading as Tim Scott (R-SC) was appointed in 2013. Either change to first African American Democratic Senator since Obama in 2004 or change to second African American Senator since Obama in 2004. Alternatively, he is the third African-American Senator after Barack Obama and Tim Scott. [2] 64.106.111.2 (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Julia Marin Hellwege, PhD Candidate Political Science

I don't think it's misleading. It says first African American to be elected since Obama. Scott was not elected. To me, those suggestions you provide are more confusing or odd parsings. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
On second thought, clarification doesn't hurt. I added a note that says that Mo Cowan and Scott were both appointed in between the elections of Obama and Booker. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why we need to mention it at all. There aren't that many Senators elected in a nine-year span. Just because it's factually correct doesn't mean it's interesting, or that it's one of the most important aspects of his biography. The lead's supposed to be a summary of the article, not a repository for loose trivia. I say we just get rid of that part. It's kind of offensive to have to mention African-American half a dozen times in every black politician's lead when none of his accomplishments have anything to do with his skin color. —Designate (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Designate beat me to it. Completely agree. If he becomes a champion of civil rights, it becomes noteworthy to note that he himself is black. (And, even then, I wouldn't consider it appropriate for the lead, but more as a small note in the Civil Rights section that I'm assuming would be created.) I think we are no longer in a time when being African-American is something that deserves merit- and, if we are, I definitely don't think we should be, and not including it might be the first step in that process. PrairieKid (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Sources reference the fact, so it's not our WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. The fact of the matter is that very few members of the U.S. Senate have been African American, making it noteworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I can definitely see where everyone is coming from, but I believe the fact that he is the first Black to be elected to the Senate should be included. This article is very comprehensive, so if it's included, it won't be overwhelming. There have been less than 10 Blacks elected to the Senate, and because its so rare, it's still noteworthy. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 16:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
In the article, fine, but in the lead? His race is mentioned three times. If he becomes the first black chairman of a committee, then we have to mention it again. If he becomes governor, then we have to mention it again. If he's a VP candidate, then we have to mention it again. If he becomes president, he'll be the first black president in twelve years or whatever. How many times in a four-paragraph lead do we need to point out that a guy is black? —Designate (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed this while editing the lead and I agree that the part about him being "the first African-American to be elected to the Senate since Barack Obama in 2004" does not seem notable enough to warrant inclusion in the lead. It is mentioned in passing by sources, but it is not a point of focus. In contrast, him being the first African-American Senator from NJ has been a point of focus as articles have been written about that fact alone and how he made history doing so. - Maximusveritas (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it shouldn't be in the lead. The body is sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c "City of Newark, NJ - Contact Information". Newark, New Jersey: City of Newark, NJ. Retrieved October 2, 2009.
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Scott

Political views section

Any thoughts about this edit adding a political views section? I don't have any problems with how it was written, but the article will be pushed over 70K if it is added. There may need to be some cutting or splitting off from this article. - Maximusveritas (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Those political sections don't belong. It would be fine to have the first paragraph there, and then some, but not a whole list. This isn't supposed to be a voter's pamphlet. I'll look for the policy that states this and come back. A small summary would be fine, and we can make another article "The Political Positions of Cory Booker" with the rest. PrairieKid (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree with PrairieKid. All politicians have to take "official" positions on dozens of issues, and there are plenty of websites to record that information. Just because the information exists doesn't mean it belongs here, any more than a list of his staffers or a list of his public speeches. If he does something noteworthy regarding an issue, then it's relevant to his biography and should be mentioned in the appropriate section just like we do with "Controversies" (his work as Mayor, his work as a Senator). We can also talk about his overall political image/reputation/legacy (like Michele Bachmann as a Tea Party leader, or Elizabeth Warren as a progressive icon). But the voter's pamphlet stuff needs to be left out. —Designate (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2014

I think that Cory Booker was shoveling snow --- somewhere in the text there is a reference to him snowing shovel. Please correct this. Thanks! 82.176.88.28 (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Done - Arjayay (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Crime rate...

Not too sure about the new section Cory Booker#Crime rate, which says:

March 2010 marked the first calendar month in more than 40 years in which the city did not record a homicide.[67] of which there was a total recorded 90 homicides.[68] In that year, the Newark Police Department laid-off 162 officers due to budgetary cuts.[69] 13% of its police force.[70] According to Federal Bureau of Investigation report there were recorded 94 homicides in 2011 and 95 in 2012. In a period ending September 6, 2013 the city saw 10 murders in 10 days, a statistic largely attributed to the reduction of the police force.[72][73] As of December 27 the murder rate was over 100, the first time it had reached that number in seven years.[74] The 2013 homicide rate total totalled 111, the highest tally since 1990.[75]

Here's some of the issues I have.

First of all, analyzing causes of variations homicide rates is a pretty complex thing. The correlation between murder rate and number of police officers is probably not zero or less, but there are other things that probably correlate much more, particularly percentage of the population that are young unmarried men, but also the unemployment rate, what's going on in the drug distribution industry, gang activity, season, what your arrest rate and incarceration rate is, demographic movement, and probably much else.

Also, its not clear to me that variations of the magnitude described here (90 -> 94 -> 95 -> 111) is statistically significant rather than just noise. It might be. I'm not a statistician. The 90-94-95 is pretty close to flat, it jumped 16 in 2013; I'd like to see the 2014 numbers and for a few years out before trying to figure out what's going on here.

Also, "10 murders in 10 days", I'm not a statistician, but if you're averaging about one instance of event X per 3.5 days, then in a period of several years, would it be truly well of outside normal statistical variation to have ten of event X in ten days? I don't know, I'm asking. But... obviously if that rate continued such that you had 365 murders in a year that'd be significant. But if the 10-in-10 thing is worth mentioned and implying as being due to paucity of policing, why did it stop, so that there were about 3 murders per ten days during the other 355 days of 2013? (Looking later, a news story has "seven of the victims appeared to have been specifically targeted" so in addition to statistical fluctuation you have maybe business-cycle issues in the drug trade or whatnot.)

But, I'm just some mook. So looking at what the sources say: here we have Albert Samaha in the Village Voice -- actually it's a blog, but published under the aegis of the Voice -- with the title "Newark's 10 Day Stretch of 10 Homicides Reflects Drop in Cop Numbers". Samaha appears to be a real writer, but he writes for the Voice, the Riverfront Times (St. L.), SF Weekly... this is OK, but not top mainline news organizations, and he's a generalist, not specializing either in crime or New Jersey culture... he's just some guy, really. It's a step up from WP:GUYINBAR I guess. And really there's nothing in the article to show that "just kind of a random spark-up" as the police chief says isn't what's going on. There's not really a lot there beyond the bare assertion in the title. This source has little or no worth.

Then there's this, "Ten days, 10 dead: Shooting deaths plague Newark" in nj.com by James Queally and David Giambusso. I don't have much on these guys, but Queally's a real reporter at the Newark Star-Ledger and on the crime beat too, and Giambusso's also a Star-Ledger reporter on the City Hall beat. So this is way better than Samaha for our purposes. It's a good story too and has tons of details. It doesn't say or imply anything about the deaths being related to changes in police numbers or police practices, though. (Looks like some of the ten deaths could have been caused by lack of police presence, but some (such as a couple domestic disputes, a kid shot in his bedroom, and so forth) probably not.) The reporters do make the point that the 10-in-10 surge constituted a political problem for Booker -- "The spate of homicides plays large on Newark’s political stage as candidates seeking to replace Booker grapple with Newark’s stubborn crime problem" they say, and that's surely true; one candidate talked about how his zero-tolerance policy would would confound statistical fluctuation, another how his plan to involve many stakeholders would, and so forth. This is argle-bargle of course but possibly notable argle-bargle, but it belongs under the political-campaign sections if anywhere.

So all things considered I considered the section too simplistic and possibly misleading and so not a service to the reader, so I removed it. Herostratus (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't like it because the subject of the article is Cory Booker, not Newark or its crime rate, but you make a compelling argument as well :) Chimino (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

We should add how tall Cory Booker is

I was googling celebrities with my girlfriend and was unable to find out how tall Cory Booker is. Apparently, he wrote an editorial at Stanford when he was 22 that stated that he was 6'3" tall. I think that the people have a right to know.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/cory_booker_responds_to_ferguson_decision_by_sharing_column_he_wrote_in_1992.html

I am not an autoconfirmed user so if someone can add this to "Personal Details" or somewhere more appropriate, that would make this article better.

-danbert2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danbert2000 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know whether Booker's height improves the article, but that datum has been reported - from 6'3" to 6'3.2" - in several online sites: [1][2][3]
  1. ^ Politician Cory Booker Height Comparison
  2. ^ The Ugly Truth About Cory Booker, New Jersey’s Golden Boy
  3. ^ Declined 2016 Democratic Presidential Candidate, Cory Booker, U.S. Senator-elect from New Jersey

Judaism

His connections with Judaism aren't fleshed out very well here. This link could help: http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/140767/cory-bookers-jewish-story czar 19:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Texting with a Stripper

IIRC, there was a controversy during the 2013 campaign about Booker's fanboy texting with a stripper. It seemed to me notable if only because it showed the extent to which US politics had degenerated into concern with such matters in the wake of the Anthony Weiner thing. Anyway, I hope somebody can insert a properly documented sentence on the subject here. I'm too lazy at the moment. --Christofurio (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Appearance in the Film "Street Fight"

Cory Booker's 2002 mayoral campaign was chronicled in the film Street Fight. This is mentioned in the "Films" section, but it is also relevant in the "Mayoral campaigns" section. The documentary drew a lot of attention to Booker and continues to do so.

I propose a brief sentence at the end of the "2002 election" sub-section that reads: "The election was chronicled in the Oscar-nominated documentary Street Fight."

Thanks for considering the change! Danmcp (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: I linked to the article Street Fight (film) instead of the external link per WP:EL EvergreenFir (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

We're pretty much insinuating he's gay here. Not that there's a problem with that, but maybe it's time he formally came out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.188.100 (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cory Booker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cory Booker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Cory Booker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cory Booker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cory Booker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cory Booker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2018

In the paragraph below change the word "legalization" to "legislation"

He ran against Steve Lonegan in the 2013 U.S. Senate special election ultimately becoming the first black U.S. Senator from New Jersey. Booker subsequently won the 2014 election against Jeff Bell. During his five years in office, he has voted on key legalization concerning U.S. economic, environmental, foreign, and national defense policy. Lsaffer (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2018

The "Turnout" number in the table titled: United States Senate special election in New Jersey, 2013, is incorrect. The sum of votes needs to be recalculated. Clliday (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Please find the correct numbers and provide a reliable source before using the {{edit semi-protected}} request. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Since when is Corey Booker praised by Conservatives as Non-Partisan?

The article claims, "He has been a leading voice in bipartisanship throughout his political career garnering praise and criticism from the left and right. His political ideology closely aligns with the New Democrat movement although he has been described as a political moderate and a neoliberal." There is no source. There is no way to edit the article to ask for a source. The truth is that Corey Booker has a rating of only 4% from the American Conservative Union, of 0% from Americans for Prosperity, of 0% from Heritage Action, of 0% from Campaign for Working Families, F- from NumbersUSA, 0% from NRA, 0% from National Right to Life, but of 95% from Americans for Democratic Action, 100% from AFL-CIO, 100% from NEA, 100% from Planned Parenthood.

In other words, he's a nearly perfectly straight down-the-line liberal, with nearly zero history of reaching across the aisle. This is an example of the political bias of Wikipedia and certain major newspapers, wherein all American liberals are called moderates. Please don't simply respond with the New York Times claiming that Corey Booker is a moderate. (I criticized Wikipedia for calling Merrick Garland a moderate and asked for an example of where he sided with conservatives against liberals, and got instead examples of major newspapers, such as the New York Times calling him a moderate.) The New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for denying the Soviet Holocaust. Please instead provide actual instances of something conservative he has promoted, or something liberal he has opposed, or even something outside the box he has proposed instead of a liberal idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.185.97 (talk)

First, please sign your comments. Second, I think you are misreading what is written. It's not saying that Booker is not liberal, it is saying he has a reputation for working with both parties. Bipartisanship is not about being in the center, but about finding points of agreement to make deals. Here are some sources, to support the idea that Booker has tried to work across party lines, including NPR, Fox News, [NJ.com] and the National Review. The National Review notes Booker's stance has changed as 2020 is approaches. Knope7 (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Senate rules

is it appropriate to put in a section about booker breaking senate rules and releasing committee confidential documents[1] עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC) strike that he didn't break senate rules as everything was declassified before so should we add in his "grandstanding dishonest stunt" [2] עם ישראל חי (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Today's events seem significant. How is it being handled at the Kavanaugh nonmination page? We can be instructed by that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
We're certainly not going to call releasing relevant documents relating to the nominee for a lifetime appointment to our nations highest court as a "grandstanding dishonest stunt". – Muboshgu (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
the "grandstanding dishonest stunt" was claiming he was breaking senate rules risking expulsion from the senate since the documents in question were cleared for released before booker released therm עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
User:AmYisroelChai, you seem to write without following standard rules of English grammar and punctuation, but that "dishonest stunt" bit--I see that it is from the article you want cited, so next time you better put such material in quotation marks, or you'll be blocked for BLP violations. Just to make sure I dropped you a note about discretionary sanctions. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/06/cory-bookers-dramatic-violation-senate-rules-explained/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3e58f4effe95
  2. ^ https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/cory-bookers-dishonest-stunt
so for forgetting quotation marks I can get blocked that's just a bit a bit extreme you didn't drop the note by the way and didn't know my grammar or punctuation on a talk page had to be perfect don't see why it would have to be עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I think Booker's comments and actions in front of the Committee is significant. We should also mention his Spartacus comments. Those comments are significant and will be part of his public persona for decades to come.CharlesShirley (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
User:AmYisroelChai, I left you this note before going to your talk page where I found that you had been warned for just about every kind of discretionary and other sanction that ArbCom has allowed. Grammar and punctuation should at the very least be of a level where one can comprehend you. So yeah, you best be a bit more careful here; this isn't Facebook. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Support for $15/hr seems inaccurate

I get that it is his statement that he stands for $15/hr, but considering the bill he actually cosponsored in 2014 (the Minimum Wage Fairness Act) only advocated for $10.10 over a 2 year period, it seems a bit grasping to say it is one of his policies. Even in the quote on the page, "It is un-American to be in this country, to work a full-time job and still live in poverty. That is unacceptable. The minimum wage working at a lot of these contract companies only affords them about $22,000 a year ... You cannot live and raise a family on $22,000 a year. You can't afford housing, you can't afford child care and since your company isn't helping you with retirement, you can't save for retirement." Booker doesn't actually call for $15. I looked up the quote too, and the closest it ever gets to him advocating $15 is just being at a rally for it, at which, from what I could find, he makes no demand for a minimum wage of $15.

Advocating for increasing the minimum wage is maybe a better way to put it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobosco (talk • contribs) 03:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

"Groping" comment in the lead

The last paragraph of the lead contains a reference to something that I don't see in the body. There's also not enough WEIGHT for this to be in the lead. I believe it should be moved to the section about his education, or perhaps personal life. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I second this. It's not important enough to be in the lead and you could argue it's placement in the lead could be violating NPOV since it's a big call to attention of an incident that could paint Booker in a negative light given his advocacy for women's rights. Reattacollector (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree it was undue weight. I moved it to the Personal Life section. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The mention of groping as it exists today is inaccurate.
In September 2018, The Daily Caller revealed that in the 1990s Booker wrote of a 1984 incident where he groped a Stanford student at a New Year's party.
The Caller covered Booker's 1992 column during the 2013 Senate race, so it was not a revelation in 2018. Booker wrote the column in 1992 for the Stanford Daily, but it recounted an incident that happened when he was a 15-year-old kissing a female friend, not a Stanford student, and there is no indication in the column that it was at a party. Finally, referring to the incident as "groping" may cause some to conclude that this involved something worse than a teen-age boy "going for second base." Since the incident is now part of the public dialogue about Booker, an accurate description with some context is warranted and will make an edit. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm removing that sentence from the article. Without context, it's grossly misrepresented. With context, it's not significant enough to include. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I didn't see your reply before adding my edit. I think that this particular column by Booker is no less significant than his column discussing his changed attitude to homosexuality, which remains in the article. I also think it's significant because conservative news outlets have brought the matter up repeatedly, and I expect they will again. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Sexual Harrasement

should the sexual harassment claim[1][2][3][4][5] be added in somewhere? עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/10/breaking-man-steps-forward-with-sexual-assault-allegations-against-sen-cory-booker-with-lawyer-response-to-gateway-pundit/
  2. ^ https://pjmedia.com/trending/senator-cory-booker-accused-of-sexual-assault-by-gay-man/
  3. ^ https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/booker-republicans-investigation-gay-man-sex-assault-allegation/
  4. ^ https://citizentruth.org/gay-man-accuses-sen-cory-booker-of-sexual-assault-in-restroom/
  5. ^ https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/cory_booker_accused_of_sexual_assault__by_a_man.html
Anyone can make allegations. I'd like to see reporting in more mainstream sources rather than pundits and sources with an obvious ideology, and especially not blogs (the last source given). If legitimate news outlets don't see fit to report this, then neither should we. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@AmYisroelChai: LOL are you serious? With those sources? Gateway Pundit and PJ Media? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
seriously 2 months late? עם ישראל חי (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@AmYisroelChai: You mean two months later and these allegations haven't been picked up by a reputable source? That's what I'm seeing. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
no i meant 2 months late as someone already answered that עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I didn't add it to the page I queried on the talk page and the answer was no read above and i didn't add it to the page or argue about it so not sure what the heck the problem is. עם ישראל חי (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
The heck the problem is really that you had to "ask" in the first page. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
asking a question about content is perfectly legitimate even if you disagree with said content but since it upsets you so much 2 months later I'll strike through it עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Iran nuclear deal

The claim "Booker's decision to back the Iran nuclear deal framework, damaged his long term relationship with Jewish voters and supporters." strikes me as an exaggeration and a likely violation of NPOV. American Jews are themselves divided on the Iran nuclear deal,[1] and Booker is so recognized for his knowledge of Jewish teaching[2] that it's difficult to see why Booker would suffer any more damage to his relationship with Jewish voters than other Senators who supported the deal. Nor is it apparent that Democratic support in general for the Iran nuclear deal has hurt the Democratic Party among American Jews in that recent national polling of Jewish voters by the Mellman Group showed that 70% disapproved of Trump's pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal.[3] This assertion appears in the final paragraph of the introduction to Booker's political positions and in its own subsection under foreign policy. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tibon, Amir (9 May 2018). "U.S. Jews Torn Over Trump's Exit From Iran Nuclear Deal". Haaretz. Retrieved 20 December 2018.
  2. ^ Staff report (18 October 2013). "Senator-Elect Booker Known For Close Jewish Ties". The New York Jewish Week. Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Retrieved 20 December 2018.
  3. ^ Soifer, Halie; Klein, Ron (23 October 2018). "Fact: Jews support Democrats and Dems support Israel". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 20 December 2018.

Split proposed

I disagree with the merge with Political positions of Cory Booker. It is customary for most prominent U.S. politicians to have a separate page for their political positions. I see no reason why he should be treated any differently. His political positions have only been expanded since then. It is worth noting that two of the users who !voted in the AFD have since been blocked, while the other, User:Alansohn voted keep or merge and said, quote:"This could stand on its own but no objection to a merge / redirect with no prejudice towards eventual recreation as a standalone article." Also pinging User:Bigpoliticsfan, the original nominator of the AFD, to participate in this discussion, JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

After having thought about it some more, I now realize that nominating that for deletion may have been a bit hasty and premature and would not mind if someone went ahead and recreated it. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Woah woah, Booker's political positions should not be deleted in full. They should be summarized here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2019

"...co-sponsored the Respect for Marriage Act (2014) and lead the push to pass the First Step Act (2018)."

In the above sentence, please correct the spelling of 'lead' (rhymes with Fred), it's spelled 'led'. 2601:645:C100:9086:1C5B:8A1F:98AE:BBDC (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done –eggofreasontalk 21:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Article in The Washington Post

This article in The Washington Post might be a useful resource for expanding this article: Cory Booker’s 2020 policy agenda: ‘Baby bonds,’ criminal justice reform, action on climate change Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

NPOV tag on Political positions section

I placed the NPOV tag on the political position paragraph because its first section is massively problematic. Half of it is about 2013 The Atlantic analysis of the opposition to Cory Booker from the left. The article explains that the left-wing opposition to Cory Booker revolve around the following aspects:

1. He receives large sums from campaign contributions from Wall Street and large corporations.

2. He is only interested in self-promotion, interested in raising his own profile with political stunts rather than focusing on the issues.

3. Policy difference on education policy (and private equity funds)

The article then proceeds to label the first two criticism as "unsubstantive", and propose the hypothesis that they the left-wing criticism of Booker mostly revolves around his style and approach. They cite that he acts in a "conciliatory manner", "like Obama", "who has attempted to transcend racial divisions" and that "Progressives disdain the spectacle of Booker's friendship with Christie". The article does not cite any evidence of a left-wing critique of Booker around these aspects but rather assumes that this is the root of their opposition toward him.

In this Wikipedia article, the main criticisms of Booker from are left are not named but only labelled as unsubstantive. The Wikipedia article then says that their criticism of Booker revolves around "tone and approach". This is a mischaracterization of their position and fails NPOV. If this article is going to address criticism of Booker from the left at all (should it?), it should name the criticisms which the left would address him when asked, which are criticisms 1 & 2. Labelling their criticism of him as "unsubstantive" fails NPOV, especially when they are not named. Emass100 (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You wrote " Half of it is about 2013 The Atlantic analysis of the opposition to Cory Booker from the left.", but I only see that about half of the first paragraph is about the Atlantic analysis, not half of the section.
Criticism from "the left" is not a political positions, so really the entire sections need to be refocused on actual political positions. The same goes for corporate contributions, which may inform some of his positions, but are not positions in themselves. Criticism of Booker from the left should be in proportion to the overall biographical coverage of Booker in the totality of sources. It should not be highlighted to give the impression that it's more substantial than it actually is.- MrX 🖋 13:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to say first paragraph, not section. Also, yeah, I definitely agree, the section need stay focused on his political positions. Since the criticism of Booker from the left is already addressed in the 2013 Senate section, I think we can just remove the sentence about the 2013 The Atlantic article from the Political Position section. Do you agree?Emass100 (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'm fine with removing it, especially from that section.- MrX 🖋 17:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Did it Emass100 (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2019

In Season 1, Episode 7 of Finding Your Roots (link youtube.com/watch?v=WRS4pPXKTPA&feature=youtu.be&t=2694 at 44.54 minutes), Cory Booker learned via DNA analysis that he has Sierra Leonean ancestry from the Mende ethnic group. I'd like to request the addition this information to the 'Early life and education' section as well as the addition of relevant categories i.e. People of Sierra Leonean descent and Mende people. Serenesage (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

How could this be woven into this article: He lives a life absolutely bent on leaving every campground he touches, better than he finds it.

When I read this article https://mhpmag.com/2007/08/be-inspired/ I found this passage inspiring "No matter what your thoughts on life, political, religious or otherwise, you will find Cory Booker an inspiration. He lives a life absolutely bent on leaving every campground he touches, better than he finds it. As well, he is a friend to business and an ally to the multihousing industry." Is anyone up to adding this? Thanks. ----Bernburgerin (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Bernburgerin, I have doubts about whether the source is a reliable one for Wikipedia purposes. Beyond that, however, the proposed quotation would violate WP:NPOV. It seems more appropriate for campaign literature than for an encyclopedia. SunCrow (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Booker's imaginary friend T-Bone?

Absolutely nothing on this page or any associated page on Booker's imaginary friend T-Bone? See:

Just wondering. TuckerResearch (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

TuckerResearch, thanks for bringing this up. Given the media attention to the T-Bone story over a period of years, I agree that it should be included in the article. However, the material from National Review (a conservative source), Slate (which heavily quotes from the National Review piece), and Reason (a libertarian source) should probably be left out, as other editors will likely object to them. Would you be up for adding two or three sentences on this? SunCrow (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

2006 and 2010 mayoral election results

If someone can track down the final results of the 2006 and 2010 Newark mayoral races, that would be super helpful. I could only find find the name of his opponents and preliminary results (with some precincts unreported).SecretName101 (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Criticism from the "left" ?

This is in the US Senate Tenure section.

The only position cited in this assertion is an interview with Alex Pareene who was briefly editor of Gawker. It reads "Booker has faced criticism on the left. Speaking in Salon, Alex Pareene called him an avatar of the wealthy elite, a camera hog, and a political cipher.[109]"

I question this because Alex Pareene is (a) not a respected journalist or pundit, (b) this quote says nothing about Booker's positions being left, right or otherwise and (c) Pareene is not seen by anyone as far as I can tell as any sort of spokesperson or standard bearer of "The Left". If there are other examples, I would feel better about this statement but, as it is, I'm not convinced that this is a credible assertion. I'd like feedback on this before taking action but it does not hold water to me. DFS (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

You've recently removed the content, though the publication including Pareene's writing is Slate, generally considered on the left with its perspective. —ADavidB 17:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

How Cory Booker went from progressive hero to traitor in ... - Vox [[4]] (94.140.175.55 (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC))

Jan 14, 2017 - Applauding @CoryBooker, first sitting Senator to testify against fellow sitting Senator. ... An attempt to rein in out-of-control drug prices goes down ... to believe — the drugs sold in Canada are often literally produced in America ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.140.175.55 (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

On this page in the links to the bottom of the right main column there is:

Website Senate website

whereas in that same location on the pages of other presidential candidates ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Buttigieg ), there are links to both their gov website and campaign site as well. For example:

Website Senate website
Campaign website

Could we add a Campaign website link on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Booker page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibakwriter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Fluent Spanish

Ask any native Spanish speaker, Cory Booker is not "fluent" in Spanish. Fluency involves being able to express themselves "easily and articulately" and his Spanish at the Dem debate in June 2019 was very bad. I hope this is not an attempt to make him appear more talented and virtuous than he actually is. Being able to speak Spanish, and speak Spanish fluently are not the same thing, and since this site and article are in English, I wouldn't expect the Wikipedia gatekeepers to know what proper fluency is. If they did/do, then they wouldn't allow the claim of Spanish fluency to remain, unless there was another motive, as I stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.234.192.209 (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

There are two independent sources cited. The Guardian states he's fluent in Spanish.[5] The Washington Post did not make that assertion, instead noting that Booker "has previously said that he studied the language during an immersion program in Ecuador".[6] Further, the Post article was specifically about the Spanish skills of the candidates.
Proposed edit: Temper the claim about Booker's Spanish skills per the Post: "Booker speaks Spanish; he attended a Spanish immersion program in Ecuador and speaks fluent Spanish.
Comments from editors about how this fits with the sources and WP policy? —C.Fred (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I see that the fluency claims still remain. The Guardian nor the Washington Post (two sources with clear left-leaning affiliations) are the arbiters of what Spanish fluency entails. Clearly my attempts to make this right will go unheeded, so I'm not writing this in an attempt to get it changed (anymore), rather to let later readers know that he is not fluent, that an attempt was made to correct the falsehood, and that (most importantly), Wikipedia is less about truth than about furthering a one-sided political narrative. These facts are why wikipedia is viewed in collegiate circles and academia as entertainment, and NOT a legitimate citable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.50.109.193 (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I got busy, and with no pings to my watch list, this slipped off my radar. In the absence of objection over the last almost three months, I've made the change I proposed. !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.Fred (talk • contribs) 15:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Top Gun recollection

Mention of a discrepancy between Booker's 1984 groping incident and stated recollection of a (1986) Top Gun theme/slogan has been swiftly deleted both here and in the article, based on the applied source being considered unreliable. The Washington Post published similar content within this news article. Since discretionary sanctions apply to Booker's article here, I seek input within 24 hours before applying this source to the discrepancy. —ADavidB 18:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

How is this of encyclopedic importance? - MrX 🖋 18:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh my God his anecdotal story from nearly 40 years ago may not have happened exactly as he thought it had. Stop the presses.
If you add this, I'll remove it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Discrepancies between politician's statements and actual events are frequently identified in their Wikipedia articles when covered by reliable sources. I fully expected you would be opposed, and sarcasm/exaggeration about stopping the press is telling. —ADavidB 18:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Current committee assignments

The article does not reflect the subject's current committee assignments. (My account is not yet eligible to make edits to semi-protected pages.)

Current assignments are:[1]

I made the changes. CasualContributions (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Committee Assignments of the 116th Congress". U.S. Senate. United States Senate. Retrieved 14 October 2020.

Basketball

Cory Booker beat Desus & Mero at a game of basketball. There is a clip on YouTube, and Desus & Mero frequently mention it (mainly because of how high they were while playing). I don’t know if anyone wants to add that information or not. Jhurley85 (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Please provide the source. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Oxford University L'Chaim Society

  1. Please add the following Category:Prominent members of the Oxford University L'Chaim Society to Corey Booker?
  2. Please add the following information to Booker's bio: While at Oxford, Booker served as President of the Oxford University L'Chaim Society.[1]
  3. Please review Draft:Oxford University L'Chaim Society

Thanks. Diaz Benson (talk) 06:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cory Booker Refused to Meet With Ron Dermer and Elie Wiesel Over Iran Deal, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, Observer, February 22, 2016.
Adavidb: Do you have access? I don’t. Thanks. Diaz Benson (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I've added a sourced mention of Booker's presidency and the associated category. Is the reason for the student society's demise known? That info seems notably lacking from the society article. —ADavidB 13:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Israel Anti-Boycott Act revert

This is a response to the revert by User:Pennsylvania2 with edit statement "Not what bill stated".

Could you specify what part of the text is not correct? The cited source says "anyone guilty of violating its prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000, and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison", so the phrase in our article "which made it a federal crime, punishable by a maximum sentence of 20 years' imprisonment" seems correct.

Is there another aspect of the removed text not reflected in RS?

On a separate matter I think there is DUE issue, as I think the cited sources don't yet support inclusion. So I do not intent to add back the content you reverted and am specifically asking about the verification issue. Freelance-frank (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Because that applies to contracts or those who are being pressured to do so in commerce. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Typo in introduction

The third sentence of the second paragraph has a typo. It says "He at Queen's College, Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship before attending Yale Law School.". It should be "He attended Queen's College, Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship before attending Yale Law School." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.10.241.114 (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done —ADavidB 06:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cory_Booker/Archive_1&oldid=1061261795"