Talk:Carolyn McCarthy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
 |
Carolyn McCarthy is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. You can help by editing this article. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles. |
Contents |
[edit] H.R. 1022
Get crackin' Wikipedians. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 07:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism - 25 Feb. 2007
Cut it out. --Cyningaenglisc 02:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gun safety
It is clearly NPOV to describe what McCarthy does in the exact terms that she herself uses in the bills she submits and in her official speeches. She is a gun safety advocate; people who disagree with her call her a gun control advocate. In other Wiki articles on controversial topics, the terms that are used are the ones that are used by the participants. In the article on abortion, it would be POV to use the term "anti-choice" to describe those who want to outlaw abortion (even though that's what their opponents call them); they refer to themselves (and, rightly so, Wiki refers to them this way as well) as "pro-life." The same argument holds for the reverse, with the terms "anti-life" or "pro-death" and "pro-choice." McCarthy is a gun safety advocate, and if you don't like it, and you change the Wiki article, you're introducing your own POV into the article, which is wrong.Info999 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
You can put lipstick on a pig and call it Hillary but it is still a pig. McCarthy's signature issue then, and again now, is a total ban on entire classes of firearms. She can call it gun safety, but that's just plain spin--POV. A ban IS gun control. There's no rational debate possible on that.
Maybe if you signed your comments we would be able to direct our responses to someone, but in any case - to so quickly give up on the idea of "rational debate" is sad, and is not the way to make a point. You are making a point of view statement that any attempt to limit the kinds of weapons sold in the United States is "gun control"; while you're free to hold that opinion (and it is opinion, not fact), you're not free to inject it into a wiki article. It doesn't matter what you think of the issue - what matters are the facts. And the facts are that Carolyn McCarthy is a strong and vocal advocate of gun safety; that's what she claims to be, and has demonstrated herself to be, and that's what belongs in the wiki article. If someone were to change the Wayne LaPierre wiki article from saying that he is a "prominent gun rights advocate" to a "right-wing gun-nut violence-monger", it would be a point of view, and improper here; likewise, inserting your view of what Congresswoman McCarthy does also doesn't belong.Info999 02:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Liberal" backing and "heavy Newsday support"
When you can cite your claim, you are more than welcome to add it to this article. Until then, please stop your unhelpful and clearly POV-laden reverts. Info999 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess some people aren't able to tell the difference between a "political endorsement" and "heavy support from Newsday editorial page." In her first race for Congress, McCarthy got the former, but certainly not the latter, as is proven directly below.Info999
Ana: as for your claim of McCarthy getting "heavy support from Newsday editorial page", I went back and read everything Newsday said about McCarthy from May 1, 1996 through the election in November. She appeared on the Editorial page only the following times: October 24, 1996 - "NEWSDAY ENDORSES / 4th CD: Party Loyalist vs. Commonsense Newcomer"; October 28, 1996 - "THE NEWSDAY INTERVIEW WITH DAN FRISA / `I Have Very Positive Leadership Qualities'" (mentioned during the interview with the incumbent); October 29, 1996 - "THE NEWSDAY INTERVIEW WITH CAROLYN McCARTHY / `I Felt I Could Do a Better Job' in Congress"; November 4, 1996 (the day before the election, a brief list of all Newsday endorsements) - "NEWSDAY ENDORSES / The Poll That Counts / Here are the candidates and propositions Newsday backs at the polls tomorrow."; and November 5, 1996 (the day of the election, an even more brief list of all Newsday endorsements) - "It's Election Day; Here Are Newsday's Choices."
The only other times that McCarthy appears on the Newsday Editorial page are within three columns by Larry Levy, and three columns by Marie Cocco. The Levy colums: one about Clinton's coattails, on September 11, 1996 - "Clinton's Coattails Won't Help LI Dems"; one centered on her and Frisa, on October 30, 1996 - "A McCarthy Win Might Be Good for GOP"; and one where she is mentioned in passing, on November 1, 1996 - "LI Republicans Will Survive the Dole Debacle." The Cocco columns: May 30, 1996 - "McCarthy vs. Frisa: Playing for the Home Crowd"; October 3, 1996 - "The Cry Around Nassau: Anyone Seen Danny?" (which is actually a column about Frisa conducting a second "stealth" campaign, not about or endorsing McCarthy); and October 10, 1996 - "LI Women Run for Congress in 2 Different Worlds" about the differences between McCarthy and Bredes, a Suffolk Congressional candidate.
So, one single Editorial page endorsement (the fact of which was printed two more times), one interview (two if you count Frisa's), and six columns that feature McCarthy, to one degree or another (which are Op-Eds, not Newsday Editorials, but, being intellectually honest, I include them, even though the don't fall under your categorization of "News editorial page"). That's it. That hardly qualifies as "heavy support from Newsday editorial page." I think it's clear that this is something that is your POV, you cannot source, and so should not be put back in the wiki article.
Too often, people make these kinds of broad, biased, and ultimately untrue claims on wiki, and they contribute to the growing - many of them fair - criticisms of this site.Info999 02:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
