Jump to content

Talk:John E. Sweeney

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

Lobbyist contributions

[edit]

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

A comparison of the guest list with Sweeney's campaign finance records on file with the Federal Election Commission showed seven guests who contributed to Sweeney's campaign in 2005.

Contributions after Jan. 1 are not required to be reported until April 15.

Contributions are as follows: Angela Sparks, vice president Energy East Corp., Saratoga Springs, $1,000; Geoff Gleason, a former Sweeney chief of staff now with The Livingston Group, a consulting firm that specializes in university and museum clients, Arlington, Va., $3,300; Matthew Trant, The National Group, Bethesda, Md., $1,000; William Teator, owner Capitol Advocates, Falls Church, Va., $3,100; Shawn Smeallie, managing director AIG, Alexandria, Va., $2,000; Brad Card, a former Sweeney chief of staff now with the Dutko Group, a lobbying firm that specializes in health care, homeland security and education, $1,000; Timothy Powers, consultant with Powers Strategies, Waterford, Va., $1,000.

Information removed from campaign article

[edit]

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

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

NPOV dispute

[edit]

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

I have removed anything in the "controversies" section that appeared to me to be a "weasel word". I would appreciate your pointing out any such words that remain, or acknowledging that the language is now NPOV.
As for the charge that the article is slanted, I hope you're not arguing that wikipedia editors are responsible for balance when an article is relatively short (as is this one). Because if you are, you're wrong - it's demanding enough to require wikipedia editors to write clearly, use NPOV language, and provide sources, let alone strive for "balance" - something that is clearly subjective in any case.
I also hope you're not arguing that the article should be SHORTENED. The way to achieve balance is to ADD information - reliable, notable information. For example, why don't you find some report scores from conservative outlets, and add those? And add info on any notable legislation that Sweeney has been responsible for (not just sponsored or voted for, please), or Congressional hearings he has directed, or something else that adds to the picture of his role as Congressman (other than a list of earmarks that he might claim responsibility for). Or add other accomplishments or interesting things in his life outside of his Congressional career.
And if you don't have the time to make useful additions, please don't blame others who DID for not adding informaition that you think is out there that would provide the balance you think the article is missing. John Broughton 18:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're making some awfully strange assumptions. I haven't requested that it be SHORTENED, just that it be BALANCED. No, I don't have time to make many useful additions, but I noticed that the article was unbalanced and wanted to alert those who do make additions to the state of the article. Go read WP:AGF before you jump on me, please. - RPIRED 01:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've apparently been in too many discussions with newbies (which you're not, I realize) in which they are shocked, just shocked, that so much negative information is posted about someone they think is wonderful (Bob Ney comes to mind immediately), and feel that stuff needs to come out to achieve balance. John Broughton 12:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

College degree

[edit]

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

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

  • Sweeney's biography say that Sweeney graduated from that Russell Sage College. What "prolific programmer" found was that the [home page of Russell Sage College], which he links to, shows only women. So there seems a contradiction.
  • Click on the "About Sage" link, and the page says: The Sage Colleges is an independent private institution of higher education comprised of three colleges: Russell Sage College, a comprehensive, undergraduate college for women in Troy, NY; Sage College of Albany, a co-educational undergraduate college of applied studies in Albany, NY; and Sage Graduate School, operating on both campuses and offering applied master’s and doctoral degrees.
  • And what the wikipedia article says is that Sweeney graduated from Sage College of Albany. Follow that wikilink, and you find 941 students are enrolled at the college, and it shares 160 faculty members with Russell Sage College. 74% of the student body is female.
  • So Sweeney's biography (on his campaign website) seems to be wrong - he presumably graduated from the Sage Colleges (the collection of three colleges), not the Russell Sage College - the one that is all-women. But that's his problem, not wikipedia's. John Broughton 20:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, this still should be noted somewhere public -- ie the wikipedia entry. HasanDiwan 23:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that something pretty close to a typo on a campaign bio should be in a wikipedia article? (It's a typo, not a deliberate distortion, as far as I know.) Why would a minor mistake be something noteworthy enough to go into a wikipedia article? John Broughton 08:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who died and made you be-all end-all of the wikipedia biography on Mr Sweeney? He lied about where he went to school. At my employer, a "typo" like this would earn me a dismissal. It bloody well should be visible. HasanDiwan 21:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Domestic incident

[edit]

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

NPOV

[edit]

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

Yeah, the NPOV is kind of obvious here:
"On November 7, 2006, John Sweeney was defeated by Kirsten Gillibrand. His failure to debate Kirsten Gillibrand and the national anti-war movement added to his defeat."
While I'm sure Sweeney fought hard in his campaign, this little tidbit belongs in the RNC newsletter and not in an encyclopedia. I'm sure every race for public office involves a hard-fought campaign by the loser and it's adds absolutely no new information. The second sentence simply adds to the NPOV and it looks smashingly similar to what was said about the race in the NY Republican Party newsletter. Don't plagarize.
This is a wiki. You can fix things yourself. I just removed that sentence.
On a larger topic, I'm going to remove the POV tag. If someone wants to put it back, that's okay if he/she explains on this page exactly what specific problems are in the article that make it POV. Specifics are absolutely necessary - we're not mind-readers here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tag is still there; I'll remove it again until someone replaces it with an explanation.--Gloriamarie 19:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balance

[edit]

The article as of today is laughably unbalanced. Sweeney's career and accomplishments are given a perfunctory treatment, with a listless reeling off of data. However, this is dwarfed by a much bigger section detailing every minutiae of trouble that subject ever got himself into. It is an example of Wikipedia at its worst – tabloidism and lurid detail at the expense of a sober presentation of the most important information. Accordingly I placed an "unbalanced" tag at the top. Do not remove the tag before the article has improved substantially. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, even though I placed some of that information in the article. Does anyone have information about his accomplishments? Bearian (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To improve the article, you could start by setting a target – a third, a half – by which to reduce the size of the controversies section. There is no universe in which mindless, idiotic chitchat like "uh, Beavis, how about that time he didn't pay the cab driver," - "yeah Butthead, but his brother later went and paid him, huh, huh huh" is appropriate content for an encyclopedia.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't have said it better myself. I've, over the years, come to grips that basically everything on Wiki is just a giant tabloid magazine usually edited by people who have no idea what they're talking about and use poor cites as excuses for 'valid' information (I can't tell you how many times I've seen People magazine as a source, no joke). Then people like you and I go to edit it with corrected information and end up getting banned for edit wars- give me a break. Case in point with this article is the extreme anti-Sweeney stuff covered more than the pro-Sweeney agenda, as if the guy accomplished nothing in 8 years. I may not have voted for him; but let's face it- facts are facts. I even had to edit North Mariana Islands to Northern Mariana Islands because some idiot actually thought the former was the real name. SOme colleges even BANNED the Wikipedia domain from their networks in an effort to get students to use better sources of information. So long as there are fools not doing their homework, Wikipedia will continue to fail.207.172.166.181 (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following Goodmorningworld's lead, I removed one bit of the laundry list of random troubles in the article, the January 2001 car crash. It's worth noting that despite a lot of innuendo in the one press article cited as a source, the underlying facts are pretty much not relevant to a biography of the man. He had a car crash. He wasn't arrested. He wasn't tested for alcohol, but then again, why would he be? There was some sensational local headline about him being at a bar beforehand, but witnesses said he only had a couple of glasses of wine. The mere existence of the section in a "Controversies" section is prejudicial and unfair. It is entirely unclear and very unlikely that having a car crash is a controversy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: I also took out a couple of other quite silly little sections. There are real controversies which we report on, and I don't have a problem with that, although considering how article is clearly unbalanced and biased, those sections need to be carefully vetted as well. I'll keep poking at this if I have time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trip to Northern Mariana Islands

[edit]

I changed the title and header, and corresponding text, to 'Northern Mariana Islands' since the original author had the INCORRECT spelling of 'North Mariana Islands.' Get your facts right before editing.65.215.94.13 (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frat party incident

[edit]

Jimbo Wales removed three sections, one of which was about the infamous frat party incident. This was not just an incident of some guy getting drunk. This was a sitting US congressman who was shown on YouTube - with young men who were drunk and smoking pot. It got a LOT of media/press. Arguably, Sweeney lost his re-election because of the incident, which lead to Gillibrand being elected, and eventually a US Senator. A rising star in the GOP - "Congressman Kickass" in President George W. Bush's words - was shot down because of that incident. I argue that it needs to be put back in. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the section cut out did not give enough weight and analysis to the incident. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't give any reason to think it was particularly important at all. The two news articles linked did not mention anything and seemed to be about a completely unremarkable event. While somewhat sensational in tone, they didn't report on anything that would be considered particularly scandalous or relevant. There was nothing in the section to suggest that it was an "infamous" incident nor that it got a "LOT" of media/press.
Bearian, my concern here is that a huge laundry list of random smears against the guy is not a quality biography. A reader will look it over and conclude that it was written as a hatchet job - which it clearly was. They are therefore less likely to give credence to the actual scandals that are of public interest and importance.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources are 404-not-found

[edit]

It seems that all of the news reports from the Albany Times-Union are 404-not-found. This is probably due to a restructuring of their website? I'm not likely to have time today to fix this, so I thought I'd call attention to it here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on John E. Sweeney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on John E. Sweeney. 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) 12:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on John E. Sweeney. 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) 03:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John E. Sweeney. 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) 15:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 January 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:  Not done (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 03:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


John E. Sweeney → John Sweeney (New York politician) – Based on a google search, "John Sweeney" is the more common name.

  • "Rep. John Sweeney" "New York": ~4k results.
  • "Rep. John E. Sweeney" "New York": ~2k results.
  • "John Sweeney" "New York" Congress: ~66k results.
  • "John E. Sweeney" "New York" Congress: ~7.6k results.

Also, searching "John Sweeney" site:timesunion.com (within the website of the Albany Times-Union that is near his old congressional district) reveals 15k results compared to "John E. Sweeney" with only seven.

WP:SELFIDENTITY solidifies the case, because his 2006 congressional campaign website has a header "John Sweeney for Congress". Arbor to SJ (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: WP:INITS states: "Adding given names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised." News media has generally omitted his middle initial. For instance, the Albany Times-Union consistently in 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2017. Furthermore, a common name is a common name. There's a reason the article about Congressman Jim McGovern is called Jim McGovern (American politician) instead of "James P. McGovern", or the article about Senator Mike Lee is Mike Lee (American politician) (not Michael S. Lee). Arbor to SJ (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but John E. Sweeney is "commonly used to refer to the person", as your own searches show. It's not necessary for it to be the most common name. Station1 (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:COMMONNAME:
"Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)...
Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."
Arbor to SJ (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but notice the words "generally" and "necessarily". We can't use the most common name here because the subject is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so we use the second most common name rather than a made-up title. The policy and guideline I cited explain this more clearly. Station1 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – John E. Sweeney is his common name, per his congressional website and other news outlets that use his middle initial. Since it is common name, and also provides natural disambiguation, oppose this move. However, Arbor to SJ correctly does state according to WP:INITS that we do not add middle initials if it is not common, however, that does not apply to this article. CookieMonster755✉ 15:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: But most of the sources cited in this article do not use his middle initial. Arbor to SJ (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_E._Sweeney&oldid=1228672191"