Talk:Corey Johnson (politician)

Johnson's comments re Samaritan's Purse field hospital in Central Park proposed Religious Freedom Subsection
Hi there, I'm new here. I think adding a subsection on religious freedom to this page would be an improvement. Religious freedom is an important topic to many readers with historic and cultural significance, and Johnson is a public figure in a position of political power whose recent actions implicate that issue. However, a new section with the heading Religious Freedom has been added and then edited multiple times to Discrimination in Healthcare, and all references to religion deleted from the section. The page already contained sections labelled Health and LGBT Rights, so I see no need for a new section on discrimination in healthcare. Also there are no sources listed that show discrimination against any healthcare patients occurred, or that Johnson said it occurred. Below is the proposed section. I understand the issues raised are controversial, but I think they can be covered with NPOV and appropriate care to BLP. Would appreciate comments. As I said, I'm new here. Willing to learn, but getting a little frustrated. Thanks in advance!

Religious Freedom
On May 1, 2020 Speaker Johnson publicly called on the New York City Council to not "continue allowing"  international Christian relief organization Samaritan's Purse to remain in New York City after the group set up a field hospital in Central Park in collaboration with Mount Sinai Health System to care for patients sick with COVID-19 in late March 2020. The same day the Speaker publicly ordered Mount Sinai Health System to sever its relationship with Samaritan's Purse, citing the group's expressions of religious belief regarding homosexuality and religious practices in connection with the screening of its volunteers. The following day Mount Sinai confirmed that the Samaritan's Purse field hospital would stop admitting patients on May 4, 2020.

Broom Bones (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • •
 * Opposed. Per WP:NPOV/WP:Undue, as I have explained before. Also Twitter is a terrible source, anything worth reporting will be covered in WP:Reliable sources. P.s. this article is about Johnson, not a puff piece on the Samaritan’s Purse organization. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gleeanon409. Any thoughts on the topic of this subsection, i.e., whether adding a section on religious freedom would improve the article about Johnson? Any sources for your section heading Discrimination in Healthcare? Any sources for Johnson calling on the Council not to allow Samaritan's Purse to remain in Central Park? That is not what your quote says. It says "here." And, unless Johnson was in Central Park when he typed it, considering it was a press release issued by the New York City Council, that would seem to mean New York City. Broom Bones (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you focus on what WP: Reliable sources are reporting, Samaritan’s Purse (SP) offered the hospital set-up which alarmed many because of their poor track record, especially their institutionalized homophobic attitudes. NYC felt they had to accept any help offered so went ahead with reassurances SP would not push religious dogma, and wouldn’t discriminate. They did both and were asked to leave, and Mount Sinai severed ties as well. Ergo there is no real cases to be made that Religious Freedom was denied SP, or that SP didn’t have the opportunity to provide non-judgmental competent care. They blew it and were kicked out. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources may be reporting that SP's set-up alarmed many, but the article does not cite those and I don't see the relevance to Johnson. Ditto SP's supposed institutionalized homophobic attitudes, how NYC "felt," etc. Also, sources for discrimination in healthcare? And for Johnson demanding SP leave Central Park, as opposed to New York City? Broom Bones (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For any other editors who may be interested, a section on Religious Freedom was added, Gleeanon409 changed that section heading to Discrimination in Healthcare and deleted references to religion. Those changes were reverted, then Gleeanon409 deleted the reversion and inserted the previous version, but did not label that a reversion. That seems like an attempt to avoid the three-reversion rule. This seems to be heading for an edit war, so I'm hoping to attract other editors to the discussion. I'm new here. I've not been at all welcomed. I can see that my proposed section has issues, and I'd like to hear what others have to say about how it can be improved, and whether it would be an improvement to the article on Johnson. The edits I've made have been in good faith. But they have been repeatedly distorted to champion a progressive POV. Broom Bones (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed terrible sources, and aligned the text with what reliable sources state in a NPOV manner. It’s what we’re supposed to do on a BLP. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I added text and sources to clarify that the ouster of SP was controversial, and moved some cites to clarify what they refer to. I still think a subsection titled Religious Freedom would improve this article, and the current section heading is redundant, non-neutral POV, not born out by the current cites, and gives undue weight to a current event in a BLP. But, as there is an ongoing dispute, I left the heading as is. A possible compromise would be to delete the heading and move the text under the heading LGBT rights. Broom Bones (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps well-intended, most of that wasn’t helping and was more POV problems. You have to slow your roll here and recognize this is not Graham’s story, or SP’s article, it’s all about Johnson. On other articles the focus will be on those subjects. The core issue remains not that SP was denied freedom of religion, but that they were discriminating against LGBTQ people during a pandemic which is despicable, they were caught and asked to leave. Rewriting history won’t change that. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Gleeanon409 tells me to slow my roll, while WP tutorials say, "Be bold!" I agree that the article is about Johnson, and my edits are good faith attempts to improve the article by describing actions of his that were controversial, using high-quality secondary sources and NPOV. It is not POV to describe controversial actions reliably sourced. It would be a poor quality BLP if it omitted everything controversial the LP has done. Disguising a controversy by deleting reliably sourced content is non-neutral POV, which is the subject of the dispute here, in addition to the lack of any source for the statement that SP discriminated against LGBTQ people during a pandemic. Multiple reliable sources, including the New York Times, discuss the controversy and were cited in my previous version, which was reverted with the comment "poor sourcing." Gleeanon409's view of the supposed "core issue" is not relevant. Johnson's action was controversial, and the controversy should be presented, with regard to verifiability and due weight on a BLP, in order for the section to be NPOV. It seems Gleeanon409 and I are at a standstill, though I welcome further discussion. I am quite new to Wikipedia, and I appreciate any constructive advice, but the back and forth and multiple reversions are getting tiresome. Broom Bones (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of the controversy is mistaken at best. SP is a controversial organization whose involvement was protested and opposed because they discriminate against LGBTQ people. Numerous reliable sources uphold those ideas:
 * I’m afraid you haven’t swayed me that what we have in the article is less than accurate. There may be a better title but ‘Religious Freedom’ has nothing to do with why SP was kicked out. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Having read the current article version and the text from above, I am at a complete loss as to how "Religious freedom" is in any way warranted as a section heading. Nobody has denied anyone the right to practice their religion - or, if they have, that's not been mentioned anywhere in the article. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , to clarify, we know it’s not currently in the article but based on reliable sources above or elsewhere, do you think we need to include anything about ‘religious freedom’, or that we’re missing anything else in particular? Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not. I don't see how "religious freedom" is an issue here. An organisation set up a field hospital. They apparently discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, so were asked to remove themselves. They did so. No "religious freedoms" were inhibited, the organisation still operates elsewhere. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The suggested material is entirely WP:UNDUE, especially on a WP:BLP. Only two of the sources cited are generally reliable (New York Times and NBC), while one cited source is an opinion article and the rest are Twitter posts or press releases. Of the two reliable sources, only the NBC source mentions Johnson and only a passing mention ("Local officials, including City Council Speaker Corey Johnson, had called on Mount Sinai Hospital to close the field hospital over Samaritan's Purse's practice of requiring staff to sign a pledge against same-sex marriage."). WP:BLPSOURCES says "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Unless this receives significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate it is noteworthy to the article subject's biography, it should be excluded. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve research and introduced a new section that focuses on Johnson in reliable sourcing. I think NPOV requires us to cover the subject in some capacity. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I significantly reduced what you wrote. Most of it was not relevant to Johnson, and the quote by him is not needed. I don't think this subject is particularly relevant to Johnson's life anyway though. Is this something people are going to care about in 20 years about him? We should remember Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You appear to have fully removed it. I've restored it. There is an ongoing discussion about the controversy right here, so please, let's discuss, per WP:BRD. Is this something people are going to care about in 20 years about him? I think if there's a biography written about him in 20 years, then yes, his actions during the biggest pandemic to strike the U.S. this century will warrant a chapter. Moreso than, say, mandating the presence of defibrillators at ball parks. I do feel the section title ("Confronting religious bigotry") is not neutral to the same degree that "Religious Freedom" wasn't, and have modified accordingly. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The material was not removed; it was shortened and moved to a different section. Per WP:ONUS, material should not be included until there is consensus to include on the talk page. Material should not be restored to the article while it is still being discussed. I would appreciate if you not restore it until the discussion has reached a conclusion. Could you please explain how including sources that do not mention Johnson are relevant, and why we should include the full quote of Johnson rather than a summary of his position? I also think that this may benefit from being brought to the attention of the BLP noticeboard as well. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The material was drastically shortened, and included removal of sourced material. There is consensus for inclusion - see discussion above - the question being discussed is on emphasis. At least three editors have taken part in that discussion and want the material included. No problem at all with more eyes on the article. Please do note, you have reverted three times and are in danger of breaching 3RR, hence the warning on your talk page. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Fighting religious bigotry section
I propose this as the section for documenting Johnson...fighting religious bigotry during the start of the Covid-19 pandemic:

Proposed Fighting religious bigotry Covid-19 Samaritan's Purse controversy
In March 2020 NYC became the main epicenter in the U.S. confronting the Covid-19 (coronavirus) pandemic, overwhelming the medical infrastructure. Samaritan's Purse, an evangelical Christian aid group, volunteered to set up a field hospital in Central Park in April in conjunction with Mount Sinai Health System. Johnson wrote: “This group, which is led by the notoriously bigoted, hate-spewing Franklin Graham,   came at a time when our city couldn’t in good conscience turn away any offer of help. That time has passed. Their continued presence here is an affront to our values of inclusion, and is painful for all New Yorkers who care deeply about the LGBTQ community.”  The group, who was protested by other LGBTQ activists,   and politicians such as NY Senator Brad Hoylman,  assured Governor Mario Cuomo that they would not violate anti-discrimination laws but was found to do so,    and asked to leave,   at the same time the city had flattened the infection curve so the initial medical crisis had abated. Mount Sinai also severed ties with the group.

comments
Bastun, it is not illegal in the United States for religious organizations to hire only staff who share their religious convictions, including with regard to gay marriage. It was not illegal for SP to require staff to sign a pledge against same-sex marriage. What would have been illegal is if SP discriminated against an LGBTQ patient. But the NY Times article that both Gleeanon409 and I cited said, "the City’s Commission on Human Rights closed an investigation into the hospital after finding no evidence it had discriminated against patients, according to its press secretary, Alicia McCauley," The City investigated. If SP broke the law, I'm pretty sure the investigator would have mentioned that. Look at Johnson's own statement. Don't you think he would have mentioned that SP broke the law if they did? Many people think religious orgs should not be allowed to limit their hiring to those who share their beliefs, but it is protected under the First Amendment. As wallyfromdilbert asked, and as I asked several times above, if SP broke the law, where are the sources saying that? Your personal conclusion that their behavior was illegal is not sufficient. Saying that they did is libelous, and should be deleted. In fact, Johnson called on the City Council to not continuing allowing SP to remain in New York City because of their views on gay marriage, which are protected under both free speech and freedom of religion under the U.S. Constitution. His action was viewed as an encroachment on religious freedom by many, as my sources point out. My proposed section below is a compromise position encompassing both criticism from religious activists and praise from LGBTQ activists, which are both supported by reliable sources, and the total subject is given due weight. I'm not sure what to say in response to your questioning my bona fides. I am brand new to WP, but I was under the impression editors were expected to assume good faith and not bite the newcomers. Believe it or not, I actually want to improve this article, as I said when I started this discussion on the talk page. I think your comments toward me are totally uncalled for. Broom Bones (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Just to be clear, I have no conflict of interest whatsoever in relation to Johnson, Samaritan's Purse, or anything else discussed on this talk page, or any other edits I've made on WP. Broom Bones (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as written but open to thoughtful changes. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support with a more neutral section title, such as "Actions during the Covid-19 pandemic" or "Covid-19 Samaritan's Purse controversy". Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This material is not WP:DUE and hardly even relevant to Johnson's biography in an encyclopedia. His total involvement in this issue was making a few statements against this organization, which is not a noteworthy activity for a politician. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and I don't see any evidence of lasting coverage or significance. I am not going to object to some small mention such as this content that was removed. However, the above proposed section is mostly not even about Johnson. Only one sentence even mentions Johnson, and that is an extensive quote that is inappropriate and serves no encyclopedic purpose when it could easily be summarized by stating that Johnson opposed the group's activities. Regarding the sources, most of them are just briefly quoting parts of the statement he released on Twitter (1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12) or else are just a passing mention of Johnson's opposition (3, 11). The New York Times article has a few addition quotes by him, and the Pix11 article doesn't mention Johnson at all (I cannot view the Wall Street Journal article). I am not seeing support in the sources for showing the relevance of an entire section or most of the material suggested, beyond a brief mention in the LGBT rights section. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Then you are missing where several of these national and international media outlets note that Johnson was leading the effort to remove the group. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please cite those sources then, because none of the 12 sources you have cited so far say that. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ll work on it. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with wallyfromdilbert's view that this would be more appropriately placed under the LGBT rights heading and that the above suggested section is not WP:DUE, because much of it is not relevant to Johnson, such as LGBTQ groups' protests of SP, Senator Hoylman's comments on SP, or SP's assurances to NY Governor Mario Andrew Cuomo. Additionally, the May 10 NY Times article cited in the proposed section states "the City’s Commission on Human Rights closed an investigation into the hospital after finding no evidence it had discriminated against patients, according to its press secretary, Alicia McCauley," so the statement that SP was found to violate discrimination laws is inaccurate and potentially libelous so must be deleted. The same article describes criticism of Johnson stating that "Mr. Johnson and other Democrats had demonstrated 'ingratitude' to Samaritan’s Purse," and other sources show criticism of Johnson for "hostility to Christianity," so criticism of Johnson's move warrants brief mention, as does praise from LGBTQ activists. It seems that this is a hot-button issue (religion and sex, go figure), and adding sufficient context for a reader to fully get it would give the issue way more weight than seems warranted in a BLP. Plus, it does not appear we can achieve consensus on what would constitute relevant or necessary context. So, my suggested less-is-more compromise is below. I note that I did not find a source specifically hailing Johnson's comments or actions, but I would not be opposed to including one. Instead, I added a source quoting an LGBTQ advocate calling the result a victory. Broom Bones (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment You've got the wrong Cuomo listed there. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support the proposed content by Broom Bones, and I agree with their explanation above. I removed the content from the article for now since we are still discussing the issue here and Gleeanon409 was opposed to a previous shortened version, but someone else can restore it if they also think it is good. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? "the statement that SP was found to violate discrimination laws is inaccurate and potentially libelous so must be deleted" - seriously? We have referenced information that SP was "requiring staff to sign a pledge against same-sex marriage." So the actual statement proposed- "...assured Governor Mario Cuomo that they would not violate anti-discrimination laws but was found to do so" is, in fact, entirely accurate. The fact that you are 25 edits in to Wikipedia, find yourself on this particular talk page and are setting up a straw man like this... well, I'd have to question your bona fides. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Ah - sorry, I'd forgotten you were the editor inserting the "Religious freedom" section. Gotta say - this is an unusual and singular set of contributions for a new account... Care to comment? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What sources say the organization was found to have violated anti-discrimination laws? I cannot find support for that statement in any of the sources cited above, while the New York Times explicitly says "the City’s Commission on Human Rights closed an investigation into the hospital after finding no evidence it had discriminated against patients" (also quoted by Broom Bones above)., I think you need to WP:AGF and avoid WP:ASPERSIONS, especially when you incorrectly make claims about "straw man" arguments, and instead actually respond to the argument being made by those with whom you disagree. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The very first one I looked at was NBC - "Samaritan's Purse's practice of requiring staff to sign a pledge against same-sex marriage" is there in both text and video. Yes, there is W{:AGF. There is also WP:QUACK. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Where does a source say that was against the law? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. As Wallyfromdilbert has continued to edit war, disrupt, and adding walls of text, and Broom Bones has also been adding walls of text, I’m going to regroup and start again. Hopefully more eyes will help find consensus that is NPOV. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have left one long comment explaining my position, and you have yet to either respond to my arguments in that comment or provide the sources you claimed support your position. You should be responding to content rather than casting aspersions about other editors. Please retract your comments about me in your previous comment and abide by WP:CIVIL. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , do you have a response to my arguments, or a comment on the content I suggested below? If we are ever to reach consensus, I think it would be helpful for you to respond to the discussion above, rather than start over. I ask you to please refrain from personal attacks against me or others, and please don't alter my suggested content or formatting again. Broom Bones (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the BLPN thread: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * By my count three editors (wallyfromdilbert, Zaereth on the BLP Noticeboard and Broom Bones (me)) have agreed on the proposed, Suggested new paragraph under existing heading LGBT rights, below. Gleeanon409 has not offered any argument in opposition to the substance of that proposal. And it seems there is agreement that sources do not say SP broke any laws. That seems like consensus. I think any remaining debates about WP:CIVILITY or other user behavior should continue on user talk pages, if at all. It is distracting from the discussion of the article. Broom Bones (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggested new paragraph under existing heading LGBT rights
During the COVID-19 pandemic, he spoke out against a field hospital run by Samaritan's Purse in collaboration with Mount Sinai Hospital in Central Park, due to the evangelical Christian aid group's requirement that staff sign a pledge against gay marriage. His comments drew criticism from religious activists, but the departure of Samaritan's Purse from New York City was hailed as a victory by LGBTQ rights activists. Broom Bones (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Covid-19 Samaritan’s Purse controversy section
Should the following subsection be added to this biography? 22:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

In March 2020 NYC became the main epicenter in the U.S. confronting the Covid-19 (coronavirus) pandemic, overwhelming the medical infrastructure. Samaritan's Purse, an evangelical Christian aid group, volunteered to set up a field hospital in Central Park in April in conjunction with Mount Sinai Health System. Johnson wrote in a statement from city council: “This group, which is led by the notoriously bigoted, hate-spewing Franklin Graham,   came at a time when our city couldn’t in good conscience turn away any offer of help. That time has passed. Their continued presence here is an affront to our values of inclusion, and is painful for all New Yorkers who care deeply about the LGBTQ community.”  The group, who was protested by other LGBTQ activists,   and politicians such as NY Senator Brad Hoylman,  assured Governor Andrew Cuomo that they would not violate anti-discrimination laws but forced workers to sign faith statements against same-sex marriages,    and were asked to leave,   at the same time the city had flattened the infection curve so the initial medical crisis had abated. Mount Sinai severed ties with the group because of the politics and protests. <ref name=":19" /

source survey
Singles out Johnson (Some also mention Governor Cuomo):

quotes speaker Johnson:

uses full quote:

RfC Comments

 * Support as written, open to thoughtful changes. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , it seems like you have not liked the responses you have gotten so far, and so for some reason you are now starting a new section rather than responding to the arguments made in the previous section or at BLPN. This is not helpful to the discussion, and I await your response to my questions above. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As a general rule I ignore wall of texts, and disengage from editors who are IMHO less than collegial. If you have brief questions on the RFC I’d be happy to entertain them. The entire ‘Source summary’ that I spent hours on was because of you so I hope that answers at least some of your concerns. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I left no walls of text, and I have never been uncivil; please strike your false comments about me. You have never provided any sources about the article subject "leading" protests, and that was your sole response to my original comment. What encyclopedic significance does this issue have beyond a single statement released by a politician about a controversial group? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think your arguments are easily answered that a multitude of reliable sources feel that Johnson was a leader in protesting SP, and felt that the story, and his statement were noteworthy. It’s the same basis that all information on Wikipedia should go through. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What sources call Johnson a "leader" or use any similar language? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is very similar to Gleeanon409's proposed new section, above on this talk page, which editors pointed out was WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:UNDUE, and not WP:NPOV. Johnson's comments don't merit this much weight in the article, the proposed content largely does not relate to Johnson, and fails to mention the "backlash" Johnson's comments received, which was covered in the New York Times, a prominent and authoritative source. Also, Gleeanon409's new section on this talk page is a rehashing of two sections above, one of which Gleeanon409 created to discuss the same topic. WP:CONTENTFORK?Happy to read others' comments. Broom Bones (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, your seeming mastery of Wikipedia after just 44 edits is hard to believe, everyone really should take note. This is Johnson’s bio so his words, how he addressed this situation is perfectly due on his article; and the ‘source survey’ buttresses that not only did most news outlets quote him, they used the entire exact quote we are reporting. We’re following the sourcing here. I’m not seeing a lot of backlash but I’m open to including something if it’s noteworthy. What, if anything, happened to Johnson because of his statement? Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Gleeanon409 The New York Times reported, "Mr. Graham’s critics have received their share of backlash. In an op-ed for The New York Post, Jonathan S. Tobin, the editor in chief of Jewish News Syndicate, said Mr. Johnson and other Democrats had demonstrated 'ingratitude' to Samaritan’s Purse." The NYT article links to a New York Post op-ed criticizing Johnson's actions. (Your source survey includes both of these articles.) I've answered this question multiple times, Gleeanon409. I don't think there's anything left to discuss. There is no support for your proposal. Broom Bones (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. His comments were covered in the news cycle and most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Just because content can be verified, doesn't automatically mean that it is suitable for inclusion. This is not a significant life event suitable for inclusion in a WP:BLP. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Proposing compromise position. I'm adding my proposed compromise position below. I don't think this event is WP:DUE a standalone section in a BLP, so I would include it as a short paragraph under the existing heading LGBT rights. Also, WP:NPOV requires that the backlash against Johnson's comments, reported in prominent sources like the New York Times, be mentioned. Several editors have already expressed support (above on talk page and BLP noticeboard) for its inclusion as written, though I've made minor changes since then. Kindly requesting comments from other editors. Broom Bones (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose or support the proposal by Broom Bones below. I don't think this is due at all for inclusion, as it does not seem significant enough in the life of the article subject, but I would not be opposed to the shorter proposal below if other editors think it is worth mentioning. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggested compromise position: new paragraph under existing heading LGBT rights, rather than standalone section on COVID-19 Samaritan's Purse Controversy
During the COVID-19 pandemic, he spoke out against a field hospital run by Samaritan's Purse in collaboration with Mount Sinai Hospital in Central Park, due to the evangelical Christian aid group's requirement that staff sign a pledge against gay marriage. His comments drew criticism from religious activists. However, the departure of Samaritan's Purse from New York City was hailed as a victory by LGBTQ rights activists. –Broom Bones (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Alternative compromise proposal
Ok, I can't be the only one confused by multiple simultaneous proposals all being discussed at the same time, with alternatives being added in to others' proposals. So - can we pause, review, and discuss? From comments in all the above proposals, it seems to me that a) everyone accepts that the controversy should be covered; and that b) the only real dispute, then, is the extent of coverage? Sound reasonable so far? So - somewhere between 's approximately four lines and 's approximately 1.5 lines. A compromise length would be approximately 2.5 lines. Gleeanon409 - what would you be willing to lose from your version? Broom Bones - what additional content would be acceptable to you?

Is a compromise worth pursuing? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to note both me and Isaidnoway do not support the issue being included in the article at all, as we both said that it is not DUE and not significant enough for inclusion in a biography. I also do not think starting a new top-level section here is helpful. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ruh roh! Someone’s being a wet blanket again!
 * We already have consensus that something should be added to the article and discussion will benefit that effort. Your position has been made.
 * Bastun, I’ll rework mine again to see how it can be trimmed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "We already have consensus that something should be added to the article". That is not accurate, and if the RfC has reached a consensus, then an uninvolved editor or administrator should be making that call. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , there is consensus for inclusion, I believe, with only one editor - Isaidnoway - totally opposing inclusion. Your contribution above from 06:28 this morning led me to believe that although you weren't in favour of the topic being included, you at least wouldn't oppose the shorter version. Would you stretch to an additional line.  As to opening the new section - there are currently two RFCs, each with an additional proposal. That's... not workable, and neither of them has a clear consensus. Hence my attempt at a compromise. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I said I oppose the content as not being due, but I would not oppose a short mention "if other editors think it worth mentioning". I, however, still do not think it is worth mentioning. I am also aware of only one official RfC being opened above, but it should be noted that this talk page has become "unworkable" as the result of Gleeanon409 repeatedly creating new sections when discussions are not going their way. I think it would be better if you addressed those concerns with that editor rather than adding to it. I have see no one but you and Gleeanon409 support some long version of this content (including an editor on BLPN who was opposed to it), and so creating another section to try to argue for its inclusion seems counterproductive at best. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @ Agreed, we don't need any more sections, or new proposals. We need to discuss the proposals on the table, and work collaboratively toward a compromise.
 * Can I ask as a general question, how do we know when we've arrived at general consensus minus one holdout versus an ongoing good faith disagreement? Could anyone point me to a policy or essay on that? Thanks! Broom Bones (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Bastun, thanks for your comments. Agreed, the multiple simultaneous proposals are confusing. I'm not opposed to 2.5 lines, but I don't think extent of coverage is the real dispute.
 * The content I propose centers on the controversy Johnson's comments sparked, which was widely covered in the news. Some of the titles from Gleeanon409's source survey are illustrative: "Speaker of New York City Council Viciously Smears Samaritan's Purse," "Coronavirus crisis -- Cuomo, de Blasio, Johnson bite the hands that heal New York," and "Corey Johnson’s deranged slam of Samaritan’s Purse — which only helped NYC," to name a few. (The more prominent sources like NYT report the criticism of Johnson neutrally, while several other sources included praise of Johnson's remarks. For WP:BALANCE it seems best to include both criticism and praise, which my proposal does.)
 * The content Gleeanon409 proposes seems to focus on Samaritan's Purse (SP), general criticism of SP, and Mount Sinai ending its relationship with SP, rather than on Johnson. It also omits even a mention of the very broad criticism Johnson's remarks drew, though roughly half of the articles in Gleeanon409's source survey were critical of Johnson's remarks, and almost all of them report the criticism.
 * I also think the tone of Gleeanon409's proposal is laudatory and the excessive context is both WP:UNDUE and not WP:NPOV because it appears to be included in defense of Johnson's comments. Broom Bones (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflict - this is a reply to Wallyfromdilbert): Other editors think it is worth mentioning. I am addressing the issue by asking involved editors to compromise. Again - this is about compromise. On BLP/N, proposed working collaboratively, which is what I'm trying to do here. They also suggested that we "settle for a few lines." That's what I'm proposing. Up from Broom Bones' 1.5 lines, down from Gleeanon's 4 lines. And Gleeanon409 does seems to be willing to shorten their proposed version. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * OK - so, essentially, the content can be somewhat longer than your proposal, somewhat shorter than Gleeanon's, if what's included is more neutral in content and tone? That's something we can work with, then. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, @<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun . Yup, that makes sense to me. And to answer your question from earlier, I think it would be acceptable to add the quote from Johnson (without interstitial citations), but not the intro sentence about COVID-19, others' criticism/protests of SP, statement about the medical crisis abating or Mount Sinai ending ties to SP. These belong on the articles about COVID-19, SP, Governor Cuomo, Senator Hoylman and Mount Sinai if they belong on WP at all. Broom Bones (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Kk. It's late here, I'll propose a wording tomorrow, along those lines, if someone doesn't beat me to it. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I oppose this as well. The RfC was started just a few days ago, and it's already been decided that there's consensus for inclusion, so let's just go ahead and compromise and include it? If this content dispute could have been resolved by normal discussion and compromise, then stop opening up pointless RfC's and wasting uninvolved editor's time by asking for outside opinions.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">(talk)</b> 10:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s not been perfectly handled but we are discussing so it’s a reasonable path. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

compromise text A
In March 2020 NYC became the main U.S. epicenter of the Covid-19 (coronavirus) pandemic; because of this an evangelical Christian aid group, Samaritan's Purse (SP), volunteered a Central Park field hospital in conjunction with Mount Sinai Health System. Johnson stated: “[They were] led by the notoriously bigoted, hate-spewing Franklin Graham, [and] came at a time when our city couldn’t in good conscience turn away any offer of help. That time has passed.” <ref name=":Combo"> • •  •  •  •  •  SP, who was protested by other LGBTQ activists and politicians, forced workers to sign faith statements against same-sex marriages, and were asked to leave; Mount Sinai severed ties with the SP because of the politics and protests.

References have been combined and put on the end of sentences. I see no reason to include that Johnson’s statement was lauded or, of course, disputed by Christian activists and Graham. Also omitted is the list of other reasons SP was upsetting people. I feel the intro context must be included as that’s what a good article would certainly do. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WP:UNDUE says "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail[.]" The context about Covid, etc., is giving Johnson's statement undue weight. My proposed compromise solves that by linking to the WP articles for COVID-19 pandemic, field hospital, Samaritan's Purse, etc., where readers can go for more context. Similarly Mount Sinai severing ties with SP and LGBTQ activists protesting SP don't relate to Corey Johnson. Notable info about these events may be found in the article for SP. As a compromise I suggest we also include an internal link to Franklin Graham, which discusses general criticism of him for opposition to gay marriage, etc., so readers would be pointed to that without it giving it undue weight and non-neutral WP:POV in the Johnson article.
 * So, my proposed compromises are: including Johnson's full quote, eliminating detail to trim length, and using internal links to offer context without excessive detail in the article. My sticking point is that the notable event was prominent sources reporting the backlash, not the statement itself, so the backlash must be included.
 * I'd like to see <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun 's proposed text. But, for the meantime here's what I'd propose:
 * alternate proposed compromise
 * During the COVID-19 pandemic, Johnson opposed a field hospital run by Samaritan's Purse in collaboration with Mount Sinai Hospital in Central Park, due to the Christian aid group's opposition to same sex marriage. He said: "It is time for Samaritan’s Purse to leave New York City. This group, which is led by the notoriously bigoted, hate-spewing Franklin Graham, came at a time when our city couldn’t in good conscience turn away any offer of help. That time has passed. Their continued presence here is an affront to our values of inclusion, and is painful for all New Yorkers who care deeply about the LGBTQ community." His comments drew criticism from religious activists. But the closure of the field hospital was hailed as a victory by LGBTQ activists. Broom Bones (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Well the statement itself is whats remarkable, the backlash—what little there was—was not.
 * And context matters, as even a year from now it would beg the question why such a group was ever allowed in.
 * Also, Johnson didn’t oppose the hospital itself but the homophobic hate from its leadership.
 * Likewise LGBTQ activists were hailing the group being kicked out, not that a hospital was closing.
 * I’ll see if I can integrate the two a bit. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Gleeanon409, if the statement is noteworthy, what are the published sources reporting the statement itself, apart from the backlash? WP:UNDUE says "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors[.]" So, it's not our opinions of noteworthiness that count. We need viewpoints in reliable sources, such as the New York Times describing the backlash against Johnson's statement.
 * Also, honest question, why are you opposed to describing the backlash? The vast majority of sources in your source survey discuss it.
 * Why don't you think the internal links provide sufficient context? Also, doesn't his quote saying the city couldn't in good conscience turn down SP's offer of help make the point you mention?
 * Johnson's statement, "It's time for Samaritan's Purse to leave New York City," is not limited to opposition of their views. He demanded the group depart NYC. Hence the backlash. It seems like you are trying to minimize this point, but the published sources discuss it as the basis for criticism of Johnson's statement.
 * I'm willing to compromise here. The group was operating a hospital, and kicking them out meant closing the hospital, but if there is consensus for "departure of the group was hailed as a victory by LGBTQ activists," then I can live with that.
 * Can I please ask that we continue a collaborative dialogue? It would be more helpful to see your responses to my questions than to keep rehashing proposals. Broom Bones (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

compromise text C
In March 2020 the city was the U.S. epicenter of the Covid-19 (coronavirus) pandemic; because of this an evangelical Christian aid group, Samaritan's Purse (SP), volunteered a Central Park field hospital in conjunction with Mount Sinai Hospital. Johnson said in an official statement that was widely reported: "[They were] led by the notoriously bigoted, hate-spewing Franklin Graham, [and] came at a time when our city couldn’t in good conscience turn away any offer of help. That time has passed." <ref name=":Combo"> • •  •  •  •  •  SP, who was protested by other LGBTQ activists and politicians, forced workers to sign faith statements against same-sex marriages, and were asked to leave; Johnson’s comments drew criticism from religious activists, but Mount Sinai severed ties with SP because of the politics and protests.

Broom Bones you have to write for someone who reads this ten years from now, the details of why Johnson states what he does are important, likewise the context of why SP was ever allowed to operate on city property like they did. The idea that we’re trying to find a perfect 2.75 sentences is silly, we report the facts as well-written and concisely as needed. The vast majority of criticism was unhinged from eight-wing blogs that are miles away from reliable. I can’t say I registered any really from reliable sources but I’ll certainly look at NYT again. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

(Apologies for lack of involvement today. Busy with work, then actually had a Friday night off. then some not-so-good Covid-related news. I'll contribute tomorrow <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC) )


 * Very sorry to hear that, <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun . Hard times we are living in. I'll await your contribution, but completely understand if it is not a priority. Broom Bones (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Broom Bones, I looked again to find this notable criticism of Johnson’s statement, specifically the backlash for telling SP to leave the city. I found pretty much none. The NY Times wrote, in total, “Mr. Graham’s critics have received their share of backlash. In an op-ed for The New York Post, Jonathan S. Tobin, the editor in chief of Jewish News Syndicate, said Mr. Johnson and other Democrats had demonstrated “ingratitude” to Samaritan’s Purse.” So we have vague and shared backlash, if any. Most of the *reliable* sources reported Johnson’s statement, some in full, but there was almost no criticism / parsing of it. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Gleeanon409 Did you read the New York Post article that the NYT quoted and linked to, "Corey Johnson’s deranged slam of Samaritan’s Purse — which only helped NYC,"? Broom Bones (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I doubt that would be considered a reliable source, but, again, it was generalized toward all detractors, and not much of any backlash.
 * In a massive city like New York I imagine that for every politician you can find someone opposing whatever they say.
 * I’m still open if you can find any notable backlash. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Pay-to-play and close ties to lobbyists
Corey Johnson, from 2008 to 2010, was a real-estate lobbyist or government relations director at GFI Development. Anna Sanders reported Johnson received around a tenth of his mayoral campaign donations from "people who work for or serve hundreds of entities that have gotten millions in discretionary funds from the Council"; Johnson denied allegations of pay-to-play. Sanders and other sources mention other close ties to lobbyists,  especially the Kasirer lobbying firm, as one of its vice presidents, Jason Goldman, served as Johnson's deputy chief of staff. Soon after ending his campaign for mayor, Johnson reportedly moved to start a government relations consulting firm. Johnson was hired by an Israeli tech firm as its United States government relations advisor, with a focus on New York. He will advise and "liaise with municipal and state officials".

I realize all of this information is pretty controversial, which is why I'm bringing it up to gague consensus before adding it to the article. Comments welcome. HueSurname (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)