Talk:Jack Davis (industrialist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents

[edit] Save Jobs Party

I'm considering deleting the last paragraph- the one in regards to Matthew Bova. It seems rather tangential (it does not once directly reference Davis). This seems more pertinent to a "SAve Jobs Party" page than the Davis page. Just looking for some input... Unless persuaded otherwise, I plan to delete by Sept. 20th.

--Cjs56 13:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The link is now to a story that one has to purchase to see in full, but here's the free text: Matthew J. Bova, a former Democratic candidate for state senator who was accused of forging signatures on a nominating petition last year, pleaded guilty to a reduced charge Monday in City Court. Bova, 22, who now lives on Lexington Avenue in Buffalo, pleaded to attempted misconduct in regard to petitions. In his appearance before Judge William J. Watson, Bova did not have to admit forging the signatures.
My read on this is that it's pretty minor (one candidate, in 2005); looks like a misdemeanor charge, not a felony; the guy is 22 - how much responsibility is he going to actually have?
I'd personally vote to remove it now ("edit boldly"), for what it's worth. John Broughton 15:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[Note: it was deleted, then replaced with new text and better sources; I did some copyedits.] John Broughton 20:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The section dealing with the faked Joel Giambra phone-calls fails to show any relation to Davis or the Save Jobs Party. The linked article fails to demonstrate this relationship either. Someone more knowlegeable than I should flesh this out and cite it.

--Cjs56 18:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The best source I've found to explain the relationship is this blog: [1], which cites from various newspaper articles. In particular: According to the Buffalo News, “Davis spokesman Curtis Ellis acknowledged the calls originated from the Save American Jobs office on behalf of John Schrock, who is opposing Ranzenhofer in Tuesday's Republican primary and is the endorsed Democratic candidate in the general election.” (Schrock was also endorsed by the Save America Jobs party; and he lost - see [2].)
Having read the stories, I'm not at all convinced that this is worth any space at all in the article; it's more noteworthy that Davis (apparently) denied connections that were obviously there (see cited blog, which cites newspaper articles not available online anymore). I'm not going to delete the section, but I'm not going to oppose anyone who does. John Broughton 20:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, JB, you have an excellent sense of dedication to wikipedia and to research. Count me as an admirer. If this keeps up, soon you'll have found enough info for a substantial "Save Jobs Party" page.
Unless I see something other than circumstantial evidence periferally linked to Davis by tomorrow night I'm going to delete the stuff about the automated phone calls. --Cjs56 23:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Yup, I can see that on my headstone: Founding author of the wikipedia article on the New York State Save Jobs Party. Quite impressive. John Broughton 12:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the material in this article "founder of the 'Save Jobs Party' article" may be more auspicious than "founder of the 'Save Jobs Party."' Keep up the good work. --Cjs56 02:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A user with a history of vandalism and his recent removal of content

He removed content here, with a deceptive edit summary here, can someone please check up on this?Qrc2006 00:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

He is user:Grazon

[edit] WP:BLP

Unsourced claims that reflect poorly on a canidate will be removed quickly. Do not add in claims that fail to meet WP:RS. --Arbusto 03:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] You Don't Know Jack External Link

There has been a lot of back and forth on whether or not this page should link to the following blog: You Don't Know Jack. It seems that some consensus was reached that it should be labled as "A regional blog offering conservative commentary." I'd like to put its retention or deletion up to a vote. It would appear last among the external links as such: A regional blog offering conservative commentary. If there are no objections, I would have the voting close at noon EST on Wednesday 10/18/06. --Cjs56 13:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep:- --Cjs56 13:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: may not be in strict compliance with Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, but if it's properly labeled, the usefulness (it's well written, and has a lot of good links) outweighs the problems of including it, I think. At some point wikipedia will have enough editors so that local candidates in competitive U.S. House races are well-covered, but we're not there yet, and I'd rather send a reader to a blog that has good sources than expect him/her to sift through hundreds of inferior websites to find what's good. John Broughton | Talk 23:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military service

User WNY has been reverting John Broughton's various revisions of text on military service. Addition of a citation was a good start. However, removal of John's summarization should be discussed here, not just edit-warred, as John asked in his checkin. Sholom's edit seems like a good compromise. jesup 14:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The text I added (I have no problem with Sholom's edit) was intended to follow what was said in the one newspaper article that WNY cited, as closely as possible.
I have posted several notes on WNY's talk page about the need to cite sources, and have mentioned WP:NOR and WP:V. If there are additional reputable sources available, by all means let's include their information in the article. If not, then let's leave things alone. John Broughton | Talk 15:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Others should note: WNY has been posting his responses to this issue to the top of John's Talk page, instead of here. I'm not sure he knows to post here. jesup 19:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm moving it - see next section. He posted it to my talk page in response to my posting on his talk page discussing the importance of following wikipedia policies. My talk page is the wrong place - discussions of content of articles (as opposed to behavior of an editor) belong on talk/discussion pages of the article. John Broughton | Talk 22:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proof of Military Service

John - You cannot meet an obligation to the Marines by serving in the Coast Guard. Remember, the USMC was under the Department of Defense, the USCG under the Department of the Treasury. It isn't me who has made this an issue, it is this candidate, because he confused his service. He cannot be allowed to make all these claims without offering proof. Without a DD214, the cite should simply be removed, which I have done. This is a legitimate dispute. WNY I have received your follow up note. Not only do I want to respect Wikipedia policy, I believe I am. I would note that the only proof of any military service at all - Navy, Coast Guard or Marines - has come from statements by the candidate. There has been no independent source to prove service of any kind, and the fact that there have been questions asked makes it incumbent upon the candidate to end that debate. To date, he has yet to do so. I am not going to edit at this time, but I am going to have to insist that independent verification and/or proof of service be established. Absent that, I ask that you restore the earlier edits. As I wrote earlier, this is a legitimate dispute and since the only proof of service is the candidate's word, and since the candidate already confessed that he did actually serve in the Navy, even though he made public statements to the contrary, all statements from him are suspect. In fact, he gave two different answers to two different newspapers on why he called himself a "naval officer." You should not be allowed to make up your biography. He has. And without an independent source, the entry is a point of view, not a statement of fact. WNY

WNY - first, you shouldn't insert new topics at the top of someone's Talk page. Add them at the bottom. (And John, you probably want to move these there). Second: Sign with four tildes, not WNY (see right below the Save Page/etc buttons - "Sign your name"). That adds the correct links and the time.
On to the topic - You're asking John to do original research (to establish "independent verification".) The references have been from WP:RS (Reliable sources) - non-partisan newspapers and the like. They are the ones to agitate with to get them to do "independent verification". On top of that, there's a reference to a newspaper article on the claims being made. Wikipedia is not here to evaluate someones claims or investigate them; it's here to repackage what's available from reliable sources. If you find a reliable source that contradicts the other reliable sources, then please come back and that can be added and referenced. jesup 19:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
(I Moved stuff to the bottom of the page) One other point, to WNY: You wrote that I would note that the only proof of any military service at all - Navy, Coast Guard or Marines - has come from statements by the candidate. My question is: isn't that true of just about all candidates running for office? And hasn't the press usually sniffed out when a candidate is lying? Again, to repeat what John, and Jesup, has said: If you find a reliable source that contradicts the other reliable sources, then please come back and that can be added and referenced. -- Sholom 19:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
All very helpful, and I think you've made a credible point regarding "all" candidates running for public office provide info on their bios - which is acceptable, until facts are called into question. Candidates get caught doctoring their resumes far too frequently. Based on what we know, this appears to be another such case, until he can prove that service. No one asked Jack Davis to run on his military record - he did that on his own. And since he did, and claimed three different branches of the service, he cannot be take simply at his word.WNY 22:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
You simply don't seem to be getting it. You say which is acceptable, until facts are called into question, but so far, you are the only one who appears to be questioning anything other than the term "naval officer". Either provide a citation that shows OTHERS are questioning Davis's military service (not just his use of the term "naval officer" - his MILITARY SERVICE) or stay out of the article.
Finally, just out of curiosity, you wouldn't happen to be the "Niagara County Republican Chairman Henry Wojtaszek" who is mentioned in the one and only article? (Your entire posting history is in articles about Davis and his opponent.) John Broughton | Talk 22:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
No, not Henry, although I do know him. I also know Jack Davis, and have caught the guy in too many lies. Case in point, your above discussion re: the dirty tricks campaign run by Davis's party. Davis was on local talk radio, and said he fired Curtis Ellis over it; but as you can see, Ellis is still on his payroll. One this issue, do you really believe that he continued to call himself a "naval officer" for any other reason than to make people believe that he was in the Navy? What started all this was his appearance on a Rochester radio show (he had called himself a naval officer two years ago, and no one questioned him). The host noted he'd heard Jack was a "former naval officer," and Davis corrected him, saying no, he was in the Coast Guard. The reason he gave was that people are "more familiar with the Navy than Coast Guard." In another incident, he repeatedly denied that he'd been sued by New York State for Election Law violations, until copies of the suit were sent to the media. So as you can see, his honesty is the issue here and I don't believe he has earned the benefit of the doubt.WNY 13:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so you know the parties involved personally. I don't know them from Jack. (Yes, that's a joke, but I honestly know nothing directly about them other than what I've found here.) Knowing parties personally can be a significant minus when it comes to editing; it's very hard to avoid WP:POV and WP:NOR. You can assert that you believe he's lying all you want, but for putting it on the Wikipedia bio page, you need to have a WP:RS, and for strongly detrimental items you should have multiple sources and/or highly reliable sources; see WP:BLP. And then, it needs to be written in a WP:NPOV manner, and if there are rebuttals or explanations (again in places like newspapers), those also need to be mentioned, even if you disagree with them. Oh, and thanks for signing properly, it helps people, especially if they come into this in the middle. jesup 13:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blog links

I removed a link to a blog - See Wikipedia:External Links#Links normally to be avoided, number 7. This rule is especially relevant on a WP:BLP page. Blogs are usually not WP:RS (Reliable Sources), and not appropriate on a living person's entry. Critical information can be ok for a living person, but it must be cited, with Reliable Sources, and in WP:NPOV manner. It is possible (in some cases) that a blog might be a reasonable link from an active-campaign page, but this is a bio page. jesup 05:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Moreover, if only one or two blogs were listed, it would appear that wikipedia editors believe those are the best blogs, when in fact they are probably the choice of a very few people with strong interests in the upcoming election. And the solution isn't to list ALL blogs; that would fill up the page with a very mixed quality of links, easily found via a google search. Which is where interested people should go if it's unreviewed facts, arguments, speculation, and other non-encyclopedic information that they want. John Broughton | Talk 13:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
WNY points out that a couple of weeks ago, there was a vote over this issue here (which I obviously missed). And John, you voted keep.  :-) So, I'll withdraw my objection for now, and if it comes up for a vote or discussion again I'll research that blogsite. jesup 02:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that's a bit embarrassing. I tend to shoot from the hip on these things, figuring that I'll be right at least 95% of the time, and the other 5% will get resolved on the talk page. This is a case where I had previously looked more deeply at it (because it did come up on the talk page), agreed on the exception, and then forgot about the discussion. So, I offer my apologies, and I'll try to not forget again. (If I do, please correct me gently.) John Broughton | Talk 13:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snowstorm

I reinserted the para (the anon-IP user inserted in the wrong place, confusing things), but it needs editing and perhaps should be dumped and something with a source added to talk about the snowstorm's affect on the race. Or just remove it again. jesup 15:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birthdate

Was he born? birthdate?

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 20:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Exact birthdates of WP:BLP are generally to be avoided. The year is ok. jesup 23:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Election

CJS has made revisions that are incorrect. They have been corrected. First, the October storm was just that, a storm, not a blizzard. Second, Reynolds was never accused of engaging in a coverup as CJS claimed. See the ABC news blog of October 10, 2006. Finally, his revision that Reynolds merely "claimed" credit is not supported by a myriad of media reports.

I stand corrected; the October storm was not a blizzard. --Cjs56 20:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)