Talk:Melissa Mark-Viverito

Public urination bill

I added the following to the article, and cited the New York Times as a source:

In January 2016, Mark-Viverito introduced a bill to reduce the penalty for public urination, and said she did this so that "communities of color" could "fulfill their potential."

71.182.236.188 (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

That was said in the context of EIGHT BILLS all for decriminalizing low-level offenses. It could just as easily apply to littering. But you choose to put a political and race-baiting slant on it by decrying it as a "public urnination bill" seemingly "for people of color". The quote in question is:

“We know that the system has been really rigged against communities of color in particular,” said Ms. Mark-Viverito, who has promoted such reforms and is the main sponsor of the bills. “So the question has always been, what can we do in this job to minimize unnecessary interaction with the criminal justice system, so that these young people can really fulfill their potential?”

And it can be clearly seen that the legislation she is referring to is in the plural, bills, so it is in no way incontrovertible that she said what you claimed. The opening paragraph clearly establishes that there are numerous bills in the package:

New York City is poised to reshape how it treats many so-called quality-of-life offenses, softening its stance toward low-level infractions like public urination and drinking alcohol in public by steering those cases away from the criminal court system. A package of eight bills to be introduced in the City Council on Monday would reduce the impact of the style of policing known as broken windows that has for two decades guided the Police Department to see minor disorder as a precursor to major crime, often alienating residents in the process.

This will be reverted again to the prior status. It is editorializing on your behalf to synthesize what or whom you think this bill is for.JesseRafe (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It is appropriate to reflect it vis-a-vis the bills, given the above sourced reference. 199.102.168.8 (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Deletion of material cited to the NYT, etc

An editor has deleted material cited to the NYT and other reliable newspapers. That is not appropriate. Not liking coverage is not a good reason to delete it. And the editor asserted that this widely covered material was not significant enough to cover -- another indication that the editor is wrong-headed, given the scope and level of coverage by reliable newspapers. If the editor has a COI, I could understand their sentiments, but that would not make it appropriate to delete this clearly appropriate material. --199.102.168.8 (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)