Talk:Alvin Bragg/Archive 1

More controversies
Still more controversies from our dear friend Bragg:. Bragg seems very professional. Yes? I wonder what the "common factor" is ... when he decides to -- or not to -- charge a crime. Hmmmmmm ... what a mystery. I wonder if there is some common element? I'll have to give it some thought. On the plus side ... New York ... you voted for him ... so the buck stops with you voters. Any buyer's remorse? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , see WP:DAILYMAIL. That tabloid is deprecated. Also try to hide your WP:POV just a little bit and be WP:CIVIL. You're pushing it. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Who cares if Daily Mail is deprecated? This story will --- and probably already has --- shown up in other sources.  So, what's your point?  It's just one more controversy surrounding our good friend Bragg.  Which, I am sure, someone will find some policy or another to insure that that controversy does not creep into this article.   I'd disagree that I am the one violating POV.  And, I guess, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.  That is to say, other editor(s) -- not I -- agreed and decided to list a few controversies in this article.  (And you have not -- yet -- removed them.)   I am "pushing" "WP:CIVIL" ... ?   LOL.  That's rich.  So, to recap ... whether or not Daily Mail is deprecated is immaterial.  The story will -- and probably has -- spilled into other RS's.  Which I will eventually go look for, when I have time.  And -- at that point -- I am sure that the goal post will move ... and for some reason or another, this new controversy will be "adjudicated" as being "improper" for inclusion in this article.  Via a jumble of acronyms, purported policies (which are usually just essays), and many other forms of word salads.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that nonsense controversy section in the article, thanks, I took it out. If that story shows up in a legitimate source, bring it here. If it doesn't, that's why it matters that it's deprecated. Stop with the "our dear friend" language. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Nonsense?  Says who?   As far as the latest controversy ...  ( hard to keep up with all of them ) -- the one where the kid was beating up a cop in the subway -- it appeared in Daily Mail.  Which is why I added it onto the Talk Page, here  ... and not into the article proper.  I am sure it will ( or already has ) appeared in other RS's.  Which I will add.  And, again, I am sure the goal post will be moved again, so that we can "white wash" the article, as much as possible.   Let me know which part I am wrong about.  Thanks.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There are three subsections of controversies. Adding a header above it that says "controversies" is not helpful. Let the readers read the content without being led one way or the other. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why then do other pages have controversy sections and not this one? Left leaning bias is destroying the reputation of Wikipedia. That is if it ever had a reputation! Dacroce1 (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't. We should WP:BEBOLD and fix them. Wikipedia's reputation is doing just fine, thanks for caring. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Whenever we see someone complaining about "left leaning" bias at Wikipedia, it's from someone wearing their extreme right wing bias on their sleeve. Jibal (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * He's gone way beyond pushing it. His comments are not constructive and violate WP:BLP, among other policies. Ah, I see that he has an indefinite community block -- good, but there ought to be a way to flush all the damage done but such people. Jibal (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an WP:UNINVOLVED editor can hat this section, or archive it? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about bodega clerk story from WP:GENREL sources


Also, this is not a routine event, this is not original reporting, Alvin Bragg is a public figure, and this is not celebrity gossip, so I'm at a loss how WP:NOTNEWS applies to this content. Samboy (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I am wary of WP:RECENTISM, and the section issue. I can see that this is enough to include. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, what happened? When I posted it, you said that it violated all sorts of Wikipedia rules ... remember?  It violated NOT NEWS ... and NPOV ... and BLP ... and many others.  And you deleted the info, pronto.  Not once, but twice.  So, what changed?  You were "wary" and then became "unwary"?  Is that the litmus test for including info into a Wiki article?  And you're an Admin?  You never mentioned that the info was "unorganized" ... rather, you cited that I violated a myriad of Wikipedia rules.  Your edit summary, however, states that you "organized the info better" (than I did).  Once again ...  And you're an Admin?   Can't make this stuff up.  Not to mention ... you pulled similar shenanigans several months back ... in my previous posts on this Talk Page.  (Above, back in January, I believe.)   Asserting that Bragg has no controversies ... and, even if he did, they certainly shouldn't be in his Wiki article, of all things.   LOL.  News flash:  water is wet; the sky is blue.  And ... ummmm ...... Bragg is doing an "excellent job" as a DA.  Yes?  Controversy-free and all!   Wheeeeeeeee!    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Look, there’s a consensus building process here. Especially with contentious statements for someone who is still alive.  That in mind, the way we build consensus on the Wikipedia is to look for sources, to list sources, to determine whether the sources are good enough to consider listing the content in a Wikipedia article.  Wikipedia is not a battleground.  Now, I personally think a single one or two sentence paragraph mentioning the charges and the controversy caused by them belongs on the Wikipedia, but I don’t think they deserve their own section, and I think we should be neutral, especially when some of the sources are opinion pieces, as per WP:RSOPINION.  For example, the opinion pieces claim Mr. Bragg is soft on crime, but the pieces do not provide any evidence to back up that claim, so we can’t include that particular claim in the Wikipedia article.  Also worth reading: WP:NAM Samboy (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Samboy - Thanks. In essence, I agree with 99% of what you said.  However, you really didn't address any of my (valid) substantive claims from my post above.  In a nut-shell ... I did write only one or two sentences ... I cited an RS as The New York Times ... the material was immediately deleted ... not once, but twice ... and I was told (by an Admin) that I am violating all sorts of Wikipedia rules.  Hence, I came to this Talk Page.  (And indicated that there are plenty of other RS's available.)  So, seems like I did what indeed was expected of me, in such a situation.  In my opinion, the other editor -- an Admin, no less -- did not address the situation appropriately.  Not only this week ... but also 5-6 months ago, when a similar issue arose.  It left me with the impression -- rightly or wrongly -- that he/she was white-washing all of the (many) controversies of Bragg out of the article ... while hiding behind ambiguous policies that are open to varied interpretations.  Quite frankly, in my opinion, Bragg's middle name is "controversy" ... and it is not right to white-wash those -- all of those! -- out of his article.  This most recent was quite a doozy ... even for him.  Charging the victim (who engaged in self-defense) with murder.  And declining to prosecute the knife-wielding girlfriend with any charges, claiming that she was employing self-defense(!).  Sorry, none of this passes the "smell test".  And I am certainly not the only person "out here" who feels this way.  And, yeah ... I certainly did notice the "common factor" that Bragg employs when he decides/declines to press charges.  Rather obvious, I'd say.  Like I said in an above post, I most certainly was not born yesterday.  It's rather disgusting.  On the other hand, the voters of New York ... ummmm ... get what they voted for.  So, there is a sort of perverse (and delicious) poetic justice in that.  Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:667F:FF63:F889:3F49:2DCD:A56B (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree. You could see above what a "fight" I had to win, just to list any "controversies" at all in this article.  I was told that that would be a violation of policy.  LOL.    Unreal.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , I'm talking about following BLP and you're saying you agree with a BLP violating comment like that one. That's unreal. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, then, we have a slight problem here. The problem being that I am literate (i.e., I know how to read).  When I asked about introducing "controversies" into this article ... your exact words were: WP:CONTROVERSYSECTIONs compromise WP:NPOV. (January 30, 2022)  ... and ... This is a story in the news, and that leads us to WP:NOTNEWS. Also, you created a WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION, which impairs neutrality. (July 9, 2022).  (See above, on this Talk Page.)  Not to mention ... when I added in a (single) controversy, you immediately removed it ... not once, but twice.  Any of this ring a bell?  The guy has multiple controversies up the wazoo ... and has had them pretty much since Day 1 in office.  And some people want to "white wash" that ... and offer lots of word salads ... to justify that these myriad controversies should be excluded from the article.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't have to quote me verbatim, and you can try to be WP:CIVIL. BLPs are written "small-c" conservatively, especially around "controversies". This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, so we use haste and try to get it right the first time. You've been around here long enough that I'd think you should know this. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you side-stepped every single (valid) point that I made ... and addressed none of them. But .... errrr .....  thanks?      Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I sidestepped nothing. "Controversy" sections like what I just removed again violate NPOV. They have to be written better than that, which they are now. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination
Ye

Controversy section
Where is that section, in this article ... ? Come on ...       Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , WP:CONTROVERSYSECTIONs compromise WP:NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, good one. And I was born yesterday.   Are you Bragg, himself?    LOL.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Note - See related Talk Page section, below. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

i== Controversies ==

I added a new section today. A copy is below. Some editor deleted it as "not news". (LOL.) So, I am on the Talk Page. This has nothing to do with "not news". It's a notable controversey -- among many others -- reported by RS's. Thanks.

This is the text I added (with an RS of The New York Times). There are many other RS's.

''On July 7, 2022, Jose Alba, a bodega clerk was attacked and stabbed by two customers, who were armed with a large knife. The dispute was over a bag of potato chips. The perpetrators were younger and larger than Alba, and outnumbered him. In self-defense, the Alba stabbed and killed one of the perpetrators. Alvinn Bragg, in his prosecutorial discretion, decided to charge Alba, the robbery victim, with murder. Bragg also requested Alba's bail at $250,000. ''

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a story in the news, and that leads us to WP:NOTNEWS. Also, you created a WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION, which impairs neutrality. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, anything that appears in the news must be excluded from Wikipedia, due to the "Not News" policy? Is that your interpretation?  If so, 99% of Wikipedia will need to be deleted.  Where should we start with that huge project?     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Joseph A. Spadaro The application of policies and guidelines in each article has certain degree of interpretation and flexibility and is driven by WP:CONSENSUS, mostly by WP:EDITCON, in a case by case basis. Having said that, my opinion is that, in general, articles of public officials and politicians specially should have a controversies section by guideline. Thinker78  (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing that your opinion is not a widely accepted one on Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Essays are only that, essays. They are not rules. Thinker78  (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * NPOV is a policy, and you can't maintain it by dedicating a section to "controversies". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I can understand your school of thought that controversies sections don't maintain NPOV, but I don't necessarily share it. It would be interesting to see the issue discussed in the board you mentioned in the help forum. Thinker78  (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Then how come the page for Wells Fargo and Donald Trump himself, to name 2 out of literally thousands of wikipedia pages, have controversy sections? Also, as Joseph Spadaro said above, just because that story (related to the career of Braggs) was in the news doesnt mean it isnt relevant to the article, in fact it most definitely relevant. Also, you raise all this in the name of neutrality but from the looks of it you are running defense and blocking any information from wikipedia that could be potentially lead to the subject of this article's career from being interpreted even slightly negatively. Your bias is showing, obey your own user page, seek the truth and don't obscure it. Hamjamguy (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't comment on editors, comment on content. I'm a Deletionist and an Exclusionist regardless of article. Many articles have controversy sections that shouldn't have them because people keep putting them in, impairing NPOV. I don't see one in Trump's article, and Wells Fargo's is Lawsuits, fines, and controversies, I don't know that article but I don't know that there's a better way to include allllll of their bad actions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm far from a "right wing extremists" as you say. I'm actually a left leaning Libertarian who does not biased articles. Dacroce1 (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * They are protecting this guys reputation by hiding his outrageous record as a prosecutor. Bragg is a danger to the justice system. 2601:41:C800:9600:1C29:20A0:AB6B:E5EF (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree! If this guy was a Republican or anything other than a far left Soros funded prosecutor you can goddamn guarantee that there would a controversy section! Dacroce1 (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Soros funded is an anti-semetic lie that you're repeating from Fox News. Soros never donated to Bragg. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * From the article you linked: "Bragg’s successful campaign was supported by the political action committee affiliated with Color of Change..." "The Color of Change PAC has received significant funding from Soros, who has for years been a vocal advocate of criminal justice reform and of progressive district attorney candidates. Soros was the PAC’s biggest donor in the 2021-2022 period, PolitiFact has reported."
 * Soros was the main donor to a PAC that funded Braag's campaign. While it's true that the two never met (I don't know if that was alleged by Trump or his supporters), I don't think this one degree of separation disproves the statement that his campaign was "Soros-funded". 173.9.122.185 (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and despite CNN's status as "acceptable" for Wikipedia they omit key journalistic research and don't present both sides of the story. IMO, CNN should join Fox News as "unreliable". Soros's organizations did (indirectly) support the campaign, and also this has nothing to do with anti-semitism as it is fact. Just because some criticism of Soros comes from anti-semitists doesn't mean he is absolved from all criticism, especially when said criticism is backed by neutral sources and public PAC donation records. Hamjamguy (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to criticize sources. That's for WP:RSN. The harping on Soros is an anti-semetic canard, as there are many high powered donors and I don't see a rush to label anyone else by their donors. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * >The harping on Soros is an anti-semitic canard
 * Ok, but again that has no bearing on whether statements about his activities are factual. If a Jewish person does something that exactly matches an anti-Semitic canard doesn't that just mean, at least in that instance, that the "canard" is just true?
 * >there are many high powered donors and I don't see a rush to label anyone else by their donors
 * I agree, undue weight shouldn't be placed on Soros just because he's a conservative bugaboo but if other high-powered donors were called out instead, the same 'anti-Semitic canard' charge would be made because, for the Democratic Party, 50% of them are Jewish. 173.9.122.185 (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I struck out that comment as being a violation of WP:BLP. Some other editor wrongly reverted my edit, saying not to edit other people's comments. They should read the policy, which explicitly allows removing comments that violate WP:BLP, and there are other valid reasons to remove comments such as WP:NOTFORUM which is repeatedly violated on this page. But I have a life so I don't get into edit wars. When I improve things and other people remove my improvements that's on them. Jibal (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That was me. Striking through offensive comments accomplishes nothing, and implies that the original author reconsidered. Don’t do that, and your interpretation of policy needs work.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My "interpretation" of the plain language of the policy is fine, but yeah, I should have removed the comments rather than striking them. And again, I have better things to do with my life than go back and forth on this sort of thing and I think you do too. I won't respond again. Jibal (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But I will respond anyway, so that you know how to do it right. If the thread is short, and has no significant conversations, it's best to strike the entire thing, with an edit summary like "rv forum chat." If there are concise statements that are grossly offensive or violate BLP, then they could be redacted with something like  or . in their place. A strikethrough is an alteration to the existing meaning, and when done by a third party it gives a false impression that it was a change made by the editor who originally wrote it. You should never do that. You could also hat a section, which I have done. The obnoxious parts don't rise to serious BLP violations. While I think the entire thread is foum-y, it is still active and contains some serious responses, while the obnoxious content is not sufficient to warrant individual redaction.   Acroterion   (talk)   11:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And while I’ve archived several old forum-y threads, this one’s still active, and since Muboshgu is capable of closing this if he wants I’ve left it alone for now. I’ve seen similar conduct from a Scituate IP before and will do a little research on old blocks.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And yes, there's been a keyboard warrior from that 173 range in Scituate in the past couple of years. I'm working out a rangeblock or two.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Career section
I added the following to the Career section:

He also said he would reduce the sentence for armed robbery from 25 years to 364 days.

User:Muboshgu deleted it, with the comment, "that is not what those non-reliable sources"

I am interested in what others here think of this.

Baxter329 (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu is correct. Please see WP:RSP.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My comment was "that is not what those non-reliable sources say". He also said he would reduce the sentence for armed robbery from 25 years to 364 days is what you wrote. That's not at all the case, though. That's taken from the WP:FOXNEWS piece, where they directly quote a Republican member of Congress making a political attack. The WP:NYPOST source says that they will seek charges of petty larceny instead where appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)