Talk:Bill de Blasio/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Name

Why is another first name attributed to this local politician, and a name rarely if ever associated with his acknowledged ethnicity? Someone answer please, or is the German name a sophisticated form of vandalism?SLY111 (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)SLY111

? Are you talking about his name? Which was Warren Wilhelm until he changed it to Bill De Blasio? As cited in the article? With its own entire section? JesseRafe (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Wilhelm is the German version of William. Like many first names it is also in use as a surname. This seems to be the case. As there is German ancestry it could theoretically be that the immigrant's surname was something difficult for an English speaking clerk to spell so if Wilhelm was the middlename of the immigrant who could not spell in English, he might have said 'write Wilhelm'. The clerk knew that from other people and the surname for all generations henceforth was Wilhelm. It happened a lot with Jewish immigrants from the Pale. When someone had to spell Mrkovinovich (just made up, pls imagine Polish couloured pronounciation) and the clerk looked like he'd been hit by donkey, he'd say 'Myer, it's Myer'.
who cares how wilhelm got from middle name to last name during immigration -- how did it get from last name to FIRST NAME during warren's YOUTH?!
who are these friends calling him "bill" and "billy" all those years? even if wilhelm had been anglicized as you say, does someone named "warren williams" usually get tagged "bill(y)"?!
"wally de blasio" i could understand, but..."bill(y)"? still makes no sense. 209.172.25.170 (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What I was really curious about was his height. I saw him on TV for the first time yesterday and thought 'is this the camera angle or what?'. Just a matter of curiosity and altogether more interesting than the voyeurism about his wife's current, past, and perceived sexuality. 144.136.192.18 (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The NYTimes says today (7 November 2013, print edition) that de Blasio is 6 feet 5 inches. I've previously seen 6'6" reported. Today's Times also says that for its photographer "his height is always an issue" because he towers over others if not careful. One photo with that shows him in a much shorter chair than the older ladies beside him. I think the more interesting height question is Dante. In this article alone, his growth shows. In today's Times, there is a photo (albeit foreshortened) that makes his feet look huge even compared to his dad, indicating to me that he may be even taller than Bill in another year or two. --142.255.74.246 (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Political affiliation

I think the article avoids saying straight out what this man's political affiliation is. Shouldn't it be right in the first paragraph of the page? Seems like a bit of trickery since this is probably the most popular source of information on the Internet in English. 101.51.227.233 (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't there's any trickery intended here - his political affiliation (the Democratic Party) is clearly stated in the infobox, and he's in Category:New York Democrats. However, to avoid any potential confusion, I've added it to the lead as well. Robofish (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Religion

What is the religion of this person? The article does not seem to say. The article on the Republican candidate makes a big thing about how he is really-a-Jew (even though he self identifies as a Christian, and surely religion is a matter of belief - not "race"), but this article does not tell us anything about the Democrat candidate's religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.1.207 (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That's because his opponent Joe Lhota openly spoke about his religion and background in an interview, so it is included. De Blasio has not chosen to publicly talked about his religious beliefs. Also the question of Who is a Jew? is not just a matter of their religious beliefs. - Maximusveritas (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Charter Schools

Reporting his opposition to charter schools is okay. However, following it up with POV wording like "His controversial plan" and "caused concern and public outcry" while only providing the arguments of one side of the debate fails neutrality. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

"Assisting communist groups" section

Adding a section title like that is clearly POV-pushing. There is no need for such subsections logically as this only interrupts the natural chronological flow. The only thing it does is put undue weight to his activity with the Sandanistas, while clearly attempting to color this work by saying "Assisting communist groups". This isn't even close to being acceptable for a neutral, encyclopedic article. - Maximusveritas (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC) But a whitewash hiding Bill de Blasio's life long support for Communist causes (Castro in Cuba, the Sandanistas in Nicaragua and so on) is "acceptable". Standard "mainstream media" (and education system) effort to pretend a Marxist is a "liberal".

Election 2013

Election results have not been certified, 'predicted' is more appropriate badboyjamie talk 02:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Good edit. I added a ref to the exit polls, which are a concrete predictor. Fitnr 02:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Origins

His grandparents are not from Benevento, but from Sant'Agata de' Goti (province of Benevento). 93.41.184.92 (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Here's the proof: [1]93.41.178.151 (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Socialist credentials

Why isn't his socialist credentials mentioned? .. I don't mean this in any negative light (one of the leading national newspapers where I come called him a "European-minded social democrat".. And from I read in the American news media, the word "socialism" and "de Blasio" are mentioned a lot together. It seems strange to omit this kind of information. Doesn't it? --TIAYN (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

His work with the Sandanistas is mentioned. I'm not sure what media you are reading, but the only sources I see mentioning socialism are partisan sites and opinion pieces. De Blasio describes himself as a progressive. - Maximusveritas (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
According to this article, by The New Yorker, de Blasio is a self-described European-minded social democrat. It should at least be mentioned, thats all i'm saying. --TIAYN (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not a direct quote and even then, it's just "one part". I don't think that's enough to warrant inclusion in the article. There probably should be something about him being progressive or liberal, though, since even that isn't mentioned. - Maximusveritas (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a direct quote from self identifying as a democratic socialist, what sort of process can be used to edit what we don't like now? He doesn't know what those words mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


Thw quote is this “I think that article didn’t fully represent what I feel except for one passage,” he said, “that very accurately noted that one part of me is a New Deal Democrat–just an updated version of it–one part of me is probably similar to a European Social Democrat, and I’m also very deeply influenced by liberation theology, which I learned a lot about in the years I worked on Latin America.”... --TIAYN (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

This article says that de Blasio has described himself as a "democratic-socialist"Mhoppmann (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the NY Times article which initially reported that and goes into more detail, he described himself that way in the 1980s. To mention it as if it is his current description of himself is a BLP violation. I don't think it even warrants a mention with the appropriate context, but that would at least be debatable. - Maximusveritas (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree. He considers himself a progressive. As to the sources, most say no, he is not a socialist: [2] [3] and possibly [4] (behind subscription wall). This one does in jest: [5]. There are several conservative venues that claim he is still a socialist but these aren't reliable sources. We have to reflect the sources and honor our policy for BLPs. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

intro section

I think the definition/description of the Public Advocate's job is grossly insufficient. Principally, the Public Advocate is first in line to act as Mayor in case of the incumbent Mayor's death or disability! You wouldn't omit that in describing the vice president; why omit it here? (The Public Advocate would then be Mayor until a subsequent new election.) Secondly, "ombudsman" doesn't do justice to an office that is essentially an activist advocate for the public. (That's even though when the office was created 10-20 years ago, that word was often used.) The Public Advocate investigates City operations, criticizes the Mayor (often loudly, especially if they're of different parties), and publicizes complaints and issues raised by citizens. The Public Advocate is not an "ombudsman" in the sense of solving constituents' complaints or rendering service; the Mayor's Office is far larger, and directly controls the resources to get that stuff done. Nor is the Public Advocate it a mediator between citizens and the City; they're more of an investigator and advocate when they see fit. --142.255.74.246 (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I added the part about being first in line. Many reliable sources refer to the role as being an ombudsman, so I'll leave that there, but if you can come up with a better description supported by reliable sources and without getting into too much detail, feel free to suggest it. - Maximusveritas (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that the paragraph on his tenure as mayor fails to mention universal pre-k and most of it focuses on the police tensions of December rather than certain other political aspects of his time as mayor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.181.231 (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Spouse's race

Does the line about de Blasio having a black wife really belong in the intro? It's certainly an important part of his life and image, but I don't know if it belongs right there at the beginning of the article. Delaywaves • talk 01:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

CFDA grants

The Tenure section was recently expanded to report that de Blasio helped present CFDA grants to garment manufacturers. Is this an important event in his tenure? For example, does it fulfill a campaign promise? If not, I don't think we need to report every time the mayor shows up at a ceremony, whether he's cutting ribbons or checks. This is a routine part of the mayor's job, and we can expect him to attend hundreds or thousands of similar events during his tenure. Pburka (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Pburka, I understand your point and the issue of routine part of a Mayor's job. But, did he campaign on jobs for the underclass? I rembember so but I can not find a reliable third-party source. This event is to return manufacturing to New York City. Thank you for the discussion and I know we can work together on this issues and many other issues. Please discuss. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
He may have, but I don't think he campaigned specifically on grants for garment manufacture. Did any of the press coverage of this event frame it as part of a broader narrative? Pburka (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
See an additional source for more information[6] on 7 Febuary 2014.
Let us just add the text and citations to the article about the Council of Fashion Designers of America under FMI.

Snow Plows

Refusal to have snow plows clear the streets of rich neighborhoods.

This item is both conspicuously missing and very important to understanding the man's personal politics and the general direction of the Democrat party into Marxism. It is inadequate to say this man is a European Socialist, the modern European Socialists don't hate and lash out at the wealthy, they simply tax them. The snow plowing incident was an act of malice towards the wealthy as perceived "enemies" of Socialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.57.79 (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Rant all you want but anything that isn't properly referenced isn't generally accepted on a page as popular as Bill de Blasio's. thanks--38.105.132.130 (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The topic is not "conspicuously missing." It's covered briefly, as is appropriate since every news organization in the city realized there was no story after about 48 hours. Pburka (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Added the following section: NYC real estate industry

An editor took out a different version of the following claiming it wasn't interesting. I've put it back but if other people have the same problem, let's get some other feedback on it. thanks--38.105.132.130 (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"He campaigned on a platform of higher taxes for the wealthy, putting down the pro-real estate efforts of the previous administration. He described Bloomberg's vision that of "towering, glitzy buildings marketed to the global elite."[1] However, de Blasio has already backed a controversial project along the Gowanus Canal with its developer saying "He struck me, from the beginning as very practical."[1] New York magazine also quoted another real-estate executive who had worked with the new mayor for years who said "Bill is such a smart political tactician, and it's not clear how committed he is to the anti-real-estate rhetoric."[1]
An executive involved with affordable housing projects has said, "Whether De Blasio realizes it now or he figures it out later, if he really believes in affordable housing, it's not going to create itself.""[1]
I worry that this borders on synthesis and POV. What's the source that he "[put] down the pro-real estate efforts of the previous administration"? Is that an interpretation of his actual quotes, or can we cite this to someone? Has anyone else connected the Gowanus project with his campaign statements? If not, this is synthesis. Pburka (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I've removed this section, as I believe that it's synthesis. Additionally, what's the connection between "higher taxes for the wealthy" and "pro-real estate efforts of the previous administration"? There's no obvious relationship between these positions, except that real-estate developers tend to be wealthy. Pburka (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d Rice, Andrew (Sept. 29, 2013). "The Last of Bloombergville". New York magazine. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Charter schools

This section seems a bit biased. Has nobody supported the mayor's stance? Surely he wouldn't adopt a position which is universally reviled. What about [7] or [8]? Also, why is "political narrative" italicized? It's not a foreign phrase; are these scare italics? Pburka (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Didn't know about "scare italics". Feel free to replace with regular text. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Re "Bais". The section is strictly NPOV as it provides a dispassionate take on this controversial topic. Both de Blasio's detractors and defenders are represented in this short section.
section content in short, de Blasio came under wide criticism for his stance on Charter Schools, and the NYtimes tried defending the mayor by pointing to the narrative as the source of the criticism...

To 67.235.200.83

This anon editor has tried several times to add information to the Charter Schools section. He or she also attempted to communicate on this talk page, but ended up editing others' comments instead. Hopefully you see this: your edits were reverted because they were initially unsourced. You seem to have figured this out, but when you tried to add sources they were malformed and corrupted the article. Sources must be enclosed between <ref> tags like this: <ref>citation goes here<ref/>. I've added a note about the $200M of capital funding to the section, along with a reference. Please feel free to discuss any further changes here, BELOW this comment. Pburka (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I am learning how to post on Wikipedia and I apologize for any errors. :( I believe it is important to post factual information about Mayor de Blasio's harsh stance on Charter Schools because Charter Schools immensely help with the educational abilities of minority students and research has shown this to be factual. Thanks for your additional information. Also, just wondering why when I attempt to update the article accurately "African American" to his wife it is considered vandalism by someone else? Also, I put ex-lesbian but that is considered vandalism too?? Why??
We have a concept called WP:BRD - you were Bold and added something, it was Reverted. That means you may NEVER re-add it until you have obtained WP:CONSENSUS to do so after discussion on the article talkpage. From what I see, you re-added it at least twice, which could lead to a block for edit-warring. With respect to the "ex-lesbian" comment, ANY edit about a living person like that is subject to our WP:BLP policy - do not ever make assertions like that without appropriate sourcing DP 10:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I added information about Mayor de Blasio's announced decisions about Charter Schools but Katieh5584 removed the factual information because she said it was not referenced. It was factual but not referenced. I tired to add the information again with references but was not successful. Is it a new policy that every sentence must be referenced?

Under personal life, I correctly added the race and evolved sexuality of Chirlane McCray ONCE but Katieh5584 (the same person who removed the factual information I provided under Charter Schools) was incredibly rude and stated it was "vandalism". How can this be and why are these descriptions considered negative?? Why do you approve of the "reversion" of my facts? What is your stated objection? Why is there no mention of Mayor de Blasio's multiracial family? On Chirlane McCray's own Wikipedia site her race "black" (I prefer African American) is mentioned SIX times and her sexuality is mentioned over and over again. These are not assertions at all but can be "referenced" by an approved Wikipedia site and Chirlane McCray's own writings. Furthermore, if you note the approved Bill de Blasio personal life reference, #89 of the Wall Street Journal, it states "black writer." Again, what is your objection and why is this not considered an improvement in your opinion? What is your suggestion for a compromise consensus because that is the next step when a comment is reverted by someone? Wikipedia states communication by way of review and discussion options are the WP:BRD guidelines (not policy) after this occurrence. btw.. Wikipedia encourages being bold and discourages reverting and I didn't violate any Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.200.83 (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It has always been Wikipedia's policy that every statement must be referenced. Enforcement of that policy varies from article to article, but is more strictly enforced in biographies of living people, especially prominent ones. Your edits regarding Chirlane McCray were also unsourced, even if factual, and editors' responses were likely colored by your earlier behavior, which was consistent with edit warring. Since, as you point out, the information about her race and sexuality is already in her own article, is it even relevant to an article about her husband? Pburka (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Pburka! You are the only nice person in this discussion. I do understand the desire for a reference on Mayor Blasio's decisions about Charter Schools because they are considered controversial within all walks of life. I would like to note not all statements in this Wikipedia biography, or others, are referenced. What I don't understand at all is the strong desire for the race of Chirlane McCray (and the mention of their multiracial family) to be omitted completely in the "personal life" section this biography. I really can't even fathom that we are having this discussion. btw... What was objectionable about my earlier behavior besides my factual comments not being referenced? The compromise improvement I suggest is for Chirlane' McCray's race to be mentioned without the mention of her evolving sexuality. The previous approved reference cited (#89) already states this in the article. Do you concur? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.200.83 (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Your objectionable behavior was that you repeatedly added the material after it had been reverted, despite multiple warnings on your talk page. This is edit warring. However, let's attribute it to inexperience and let bygones be bygones. On further consideration, I think that race is relevant to the article. That theirs is a mixed-race marriage was important to the campaign, e.g., when Bloomberg awkwardly accused de Blasio of running a racist campaign. I'd prefer to see a paragraph about the role played by race included in the "2013 election" section, rather than the "personal life" section, as I think it's preferable to minimize the focus on his personal life and focus on his professional life. (Wikipedia should strive more towards academic then tabloid, in my opinion.) Pburka (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't intentionally trying to make anyone upset. I did try to cite references after I noticed the objections by Katie. It was only after your comment that I noticed the "talk page" icon. Oops This girl has got it down now :) Thank you for your consideration about the inclusion of the race component and I will let you add the references. haaa btw... You are not only nice but smart too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.200.83 (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your comments. You may sign by typing this character ( ~ ) four times at the end of your comment. You may want to consider signing up for an account on Wikipedia. One of the benefits of signing up is that you may choose a username and your IP address will not display. Joining Wikipedia has it's benefits and if you'd like to contribute to this article, things will go smoother if you are not jut an anonymous IP.... I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Public schools

The personal section noted: "Both children either attended or still attend public schools." This is a wonderful thing, but, from an objectivity standpoint, it serves no purpose in the article outside of being a political plug for De Blasio's education agenda. It would be much better to just say the kids names and where they went to school. For example:

"De Blasio's son, Dante, attended The Beacon School and is currently a junior at Brooklyn Technical High School in New York City. His daughter, Chiara, also attended the Beacon School and is currently a college student at Santa Clara University in California."

After reading this, people are more than welcome to check out these institutions' various wiki pages, note that they are public schools and draw their own conclusions.

I made a small change to this effect.... ask123 (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Bill de Blasio

Cyberbot II has detected links on Bill de Blasio which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://news.change.org/stories/section-8-vouchers-restored-for-thousands-of-at-risk-new-yorkers
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Mass deletion by hounding editor

An editor, with whom I disagreed on another article, followed me immediately here and did what he did there. He deleted material I had just added to this article. Without any reasonable reason. My addition was on material that this article already mentioned, but brought it up to date. He deleted it on what at best appears to be a mix of untrue and baseless rationale. Despite it being covered in many reliable newspapers. And other editors already having started a section on this, indicating it was relevant in the view of more than one editor as a subject -- and he was the only one subjectively disputing that (in the face of the reliable newspaper coverage). The addition that he deleted, after hounding me here, is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_de_Blasio&diff=next&oldid=705382757

You can see the article where he did the same thing, leading him to hound me here to revert me for no reason, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melissa_Mark-Viverito&action=history

199.102.168.8 (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to this edit on February 17? Pburka (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
From this page, it looks like he's been blocked 4 times for repeated edit-warring. His last violation earned a warning of an indefinite block, in case you'd like to pursue it... Patrug (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
That's exactly right. That's the deletion he made on this page, after he hounded me here. He did that right after I complained about him also deleting properly sourced and citation at another page.
The talk page at the other page, that he reacted to by making this deletion, is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Melissa_Mark-Viverito&diff=prev&oldid=705340473
And the mass deletions without an honest "real" rationale are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melissa_Mark-Viverito&diff=702935757&oldid=702868809
And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melissa_Mark-Viverito&diff=705341346&oldid=705340087
Nobody else seems to look at those deletions of his, so they stand. I tried to leave a message directly on the page of the editor warning of the indefinite block, but don't seem to have that ability. Thank you so much for looking at this. I'm not sure what to do other than put in the right reliable paper suggestions, which I did, and explain myself on the talk page, which I did. But since he reacted by following me here and deleting the edit I had just made, it seems he is not trying to edit in a friendly fashion, but just bully me. I am glad a third editor would take interest. Thanks. 199.102.168.8 (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but the deletion looked legitimate to me. It's unnecessary detail about an incident which isn't going to be remembered a few years from now. Pburka (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Scandal

Wasn't there some recent (April/May 2016) controversy / scandal with this guy? I don't see anything in the article. Does anyone know? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Lol, you want to see info about a "scandal" but you don't even know what you're looking for? That really says a lot about the importance of this "scandal". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
What kind of comment is that? I asked a legitimate question. Do you think I follow the "issues" of de Blasio 24/7? Do you think he's that important in my life? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
He was obviously important enough for you to come here to post that seemingly random question. Is the campaign financing issue what you were thinking of? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
How is it a random question? I saw something on the news yesterday. I only scanned the news article very quickly. I came here to see more info. And I saw nothing at all. Hence, I posted a question. I am not quite sure why this (my posting a question) is an "issue"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Considering I have no way of knowing what news programs you have and have not watched lately, it came across as completely random, and not unlike the way POV pushers try to spin articles. Rereading my initial response, I see it was not the most appropriate, and I apologize for that. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Your apology is accepted. Thank you for that. So, back to the issue. Apparently, there is some controversy or scandal that arose only very recently. It was in the news on the very last days of April or very first days of May. What news program I watch (or don't watch) is not relevant to the issue. I am sure it's in all the news sources. Perhaps only local ones, but that's doubtful. In any event, some other editor below seemed to know exactly what I was referring to. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • There's an ongoing controversy regarding campaign fundraising, e.g. [9]. I agree that it should be discussed in our article. Pburka (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
    • And here I thought Spadaro might've been referring to "CPT" time. That story might have legs, but I oppose using NY Post to source it since they've been so anti-de Blasio since the start of his mayorship that they're clearly not capable of covering him in a neutral way. This source is preferable. But I'm not sure this story should be added. An investigation is ongoing, we might want to wait until it's concluded before adding anything. If we do add now, we have to be careful in the language used. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
So, in other words, I was correct? There is indeed some current controversy; it's missing from the article; and it should indeed be placed in the article? So, I was right about all that? Yes? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, I would personally like more opinions before we decide that it should be added to the article, BLP and all. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Surreal Wikipedia comments; I was wondering how long it would take for this issue to pop up. This has been getting constant and growing mainstream coverage for awhile now. Muboshgu (talk), do you actually have any familiarity with New York City current events?Formulairis990 (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, my "vote" is that the scandal/controversy belongs in the article. What do others think? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I am for it. There are so many moving pieces to this, that a well crafted encyclopedic section would be very helpful to people. View points, like the mayor's, that he was engaging in business as usual for NYC, should definitely be included.Formulairis990 (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bill de Blasio. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bill de Blasio. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bill de Blasio. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox error

As of 2017-11-30, an edit of the page produced the following notice:

Warning: Page using Template:Infobox officeholder with unknown parameter "mayor1" (this message is shown only in preview).

I will not take the time now to fix this. I hope someone else will.

Thanks for all that others have done to bring this article to its current stage. It averaged almost 2,789 views per day over the previous 90 days: Previous edits have clearly responded to a need.

I'm editing this now, because results from the 2017-11-07 election were not yet mentioned. I'm only marginally qualified to write about this here. I hope someone else will soon take the time to update this article -- presumably citing Juan González' new book, Reclaiming Gotham, and other sources. DavidMCEddy (talk)

capitalization style

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Titles of people: If I understand correctly, it should be "Mayor of NY" but "mayor of the city". DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Honeymoon info

Earlier this year, I added the following sentence to the "Personal life" section:

De Blasio and McCray honeymooned in Cuba in violation of a U.S. travel ban.

The sentence was reverted. I believe it is relevant, notable information and should be included and am seeking consensus. SunCrow (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd be more receptive to this idea if the sources treated the trip as notable. The Times reference you provided mentions Cuba only in passing, and the Daily News reference only notes that Joe Lhota criticized the trip. That second source also claims he honeymooned in Cuba in 1991, three years before he and McCray married. Something is off there. Can you find some reliable sources that cover the trip in more depth? Did they stay at a resort? Did they visit politicians? Did they meet with dissidents? Without context it's just trivia. Pburka (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_de_Blasio/Archive_1&oldid=1136564391"