Talk:Eric Adams/Archive 1

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Eric Adams (politician). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616001858/http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/05/adams-jeffries-defend-stop-and.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/05/adams-jeffries-defend-stop-and.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * BP 2018 Headshot Wide.jpg

More copyright problems
This seems to be largely copied from various sources.

Such as this - https://www.brooklyn-usa.org/bp-adams-unveils-recommendations-for-future-of-bedford-union-armory/

And this - https://www.brooklyn-usa.org/housing-rights-initiative-and-bp-adams-announce-10m-plaintiff-lawsuit-against-kushner-companies/

And this - https://www.brooklyn-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/MOTM_May2018.pdf

And this - https://www.brooklyn-usa.org/health/

And so on.

It is also a blp that is largely uncited. I challenge all of the uncited material. I'm concerned that the uncited material is blp violations that is either copyrighted or coi and think it should be deleted as uncited. --2604:2000:E010:1100:1D06:C657:E7B:7CFE (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * User:MER-C - I cannot tell if this has been noticed properly but perhaps you can. 71.167.14.104 (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion from lede
An editor deleted this from the lede, suggesting that it may not be DUE. It is. It was widely covered in the press - as much as anything in his bio perhaps. Over 4,000 hits just in All in a google search. Hundreds more in google news. Anyone familiar with his history can see this and knows this was front page news in major papers, and if not familiar they can check this - no indication that the deleter did either. No reason relating to this specific sentence was presented to support that it is not DUE. --2604:2000:E010:1100:BCF0:4E3:3E1B:F246 (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree. These edits were likely done by vandals or someone with a close connection. Oyveyistmir (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The neutrality of this section is disputed.
What is needed to fix this? The Controversies section is well sourced and written in a neutral point of view. Does anyone dispute this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oyveyistmir (talk • contribs) 18:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The anti-gentrification criticisms are not presented well. There are many arguments to be made (that were made) about why being anti-gentrification in the particular way that Eric Adams is would be detrimental to the poorest/next-poorest/richest inhabitants of NYC, but none of those arguments are given here. Instead, the "controversy" is not the valid intellectual disagreements about gentrification or questions of the validity of his remarks, (whether the severity of gentrification warrants a state approach, whether there is another housing issue far more important to the illnesses related to gentrification than gentrification itself, which proposed state approach is effective, the fact that most of the gentrifiers in the area he was referencing did not come from the states named in his speech, etc.), but that Adams used MLK Jr.'s event to be politically divisive. That is an astoundingly unhelpful observation hardly meritable to reach Wikipedia, especially considering that MLK Jr.'s message of American unity was itself very politically divisive among his contemporaries. (Though we are quite fortunate to have his ideas on race be in the mainstream today, time often shrouds us to the fact that MLK Jr.'s peaceful protests against white supremacist segregation were remarkably divisive and that his views on consumer-capitalism or the Vietnam War would be politically divisive to this day in America.) The very New York Post articles referenced did mention other rebuttals to Adams' anti-gentrification statements, but these far better criticisms are absent. The empty "divisive" remarks remain. Milkael Shakestein (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Several of these controversies are presented in an extremely biased and negative fashion. As someone else noted here, this appears to be a political hit job. The negative spin in this section is unwarranted given the sources. Shoestringnomad (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

These are all backed by newspaper articles and quotes from politicians. There is a difference between NPOV and information that is unfavorable about a individual. If there are other newspaper articles (or other sources) that you would like included, feel free to add them. Oyveyistmir (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject
There are numerous edit by contributors that appear to have close connections to Eric Adams. They have repeatedly removed well sourced NPOV sections of this article.

Whole Sections https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Adams_(politician)&diff=989866984&oldid=989817560 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Adams_(politician)&diff=991240183&oldid=990549793 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Adams_(politician)&diff=997389396&oldid=995966080 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Adams_(politician)&diff=1004206269&oldid=1004074444 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Adams_(politician)&diff=1004209403&oldid=1004208274 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Adams_(politician)&diff=1006857479&oldid=1006804251

Small removals: Removal of "By his own admission, he was a D+ student." Factually accurate and well sourced. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Adams_(politician)&diff=1006642300&oldid=1006477703

These users appear to have a close connection. User:MelanieN User:Shoestringnomad User:Paxuscalta

I also going to tag some major/recent contributors to hopes that they will respond to this talk page. Do you have any advice on how to handle this? User:Midwood123 User:AllegedlyHuman Oyveyistmir (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of edits that violate Wikipedia policies, as stated above. The majority of this talk page finds fault with one editor's changes. Shoestringnomad (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have reason to believe a specific editor has a conflict of interest, send them a warning and report it to the COI noticeboard. Though, I can tell you right now that I heavily doubt that, a Wikipedia admin, is engaging in COI editing; rather, it simply appears she is enforcing WP:NYPOST. These users are likely looking at Wikipedia policies against bogging down an article with negative content with no balance, such as WP:CSECTION, WP:UNDUE, and more broadly WP:NPOV. Regardless, for any user, you will need to provide definitive proof of a conflict of interest or a strong reason you believe there is one. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, User:Oyveyistmir. I see that you pinged me. You are new here, so apparently you don’t understand the difference between “having a close connection to the subject,” and “making a few edits that appear to favor the subject” when applied to an editor who has made hundreds or thousands of edits unrelated to the subject. The “evidence” you provide does not show any of them to have a close connection to the subject or even a particular interest in this subject. Let me explain.

The links you provide show: User:Johnquarlo removing material twice last November and once last December; user:Paxuscalta removing a few details twice in early February; and User:Feballard removing the Shatavia Walls section yesterday. All three of those editors have been here a long time, have made hundreds of other edits to other articles, and have shown no particular interest in this subject. There is no evidence that any of them have a close connection here.

You then name three editors that you say “appear to have a close connection”: myself, Feballard, and Paxuscalta. Apparently you base this on the fact that all three of us removed a paragraph of negative material from the article. None of us has shown any particular interest in Eric Adams aside from that. We all provided edit summaries with our reasons for removing the material. In my case it was the first time I ever looked at this article. I came here in response to your request for page protection. I quickly learned that your reasons for requesting protection were not valid: You said “High level of IP vandalism” but there were no IP edits at all, and “Removal of content without reason from contributor that appears to have a close connection with its subject” when in fact the removals were made by multiple different editors, giving reasons that the material was not reliably sourced. I therefore did brief research, and discovered that the material was not cited to reliable sources and therefore should not be in the article. Our WP:BLP says “Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion”. I also found two talk page discussions where consensus was in favor of removing the material. I therefore removed it myself. Bottom line, there is no evidence that anyone at this article has a conflict of interest or a “close connection” to the subject, and I will remove the tag saying so from the article.

A few hours after my removal, you re-added the Shatavia Walls material using other sources. Midwood re-added the NY Post citations, but that tabloid is NOT allowed as a source for Wikipedia and I have just removed them. Another source was an opinion piece in something called Brooklyn Paper; that is also not a reliable source and we do not use opinion pieces as sources for facts, so I removed it as well. That leaves the Fox News item, which is two sentences long, and the report by the local CBS station. I will start a new talk page section below, where other editors can debate whether to keep this material in the article or not. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

MelanieN Sorry for the confusion. I do not believe you have violated any rules. There has been some IP vandalism https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Adams_(politician)&diff=1006642300&oldid=1006477703 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Adams_(politician)&diff=985987662&oldid=984981361

Oyveyistmir (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Oyveyistmir, you must not make allegations against another user or suggest that you know who they are in real life. I am redacting this material. Do not make that kind of accusation again. You can be blocked for that kind of edit. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What I came here to say before seeing your comment above: I do see one editor here who has exhibited a very strong interest in Eric Adams. They have been here for a month and has made 31 edits. 28 of those 31 edits were on the subject of Eric Adams. That editor is you, Oyveyistmir. You appear to be what we call a single purpose account. That is not prohibited here, but it does suggest that you should not be accusing other people of having a conflict of interest. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

MelanieN I am interested in NYC politics so I mostly make edits to political pages. I made my first contibutions to wikipedia on this page and various subsequent edits have made me return.

I read the guidelines for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information and did not post any personal information. It is important to know if a user works for the political campaign or has contributed to the campaign. How am I supposed to ask if they made the contribution? I have no interest in outing them. Oyveyistmir (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

proposed Deletion of Death of Shatavia Walls
I am not from NYC, so it is a bit difficult to evaluate. But this feels like an NPOV violation. Adams proposed people talk with residents who are shooting off fire works instead of calling 911. This seems like a pretty reasonable piece of advice. Then someone does it and gets shot. The way this section is written it makes it sound like Adams is somehow implicated in the shooting, because he gave this advice. This feels like a political hit job to me, and i would pull the entire paragraph. But i would certainly defer to a more experienced editor. --Paxus Calta (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. This section reeks of someone out to discredit Adams. The implication that Adams was involved in the death is too strong. Shoestringnomad (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

There are now 2 "proposed Deletion of Death of Shatavia Walls" requests. Can we remove this one and only discuss on the 2nd proposal? Oyveyistmir (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We should not lose any of the original discussion in either section. Shoestringnomad (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it because it is sourced only to non-reliable sources. The New York Post, in particular, is never allowed as a source of facts at Wikipedia. See WP:RSP. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * MelanieN I support you but edits from Oyveyistmir are getting out of hand. The editor appears to have a grudge against the subject and is incessant. Can anything be done? All edits by this editor are to this article, apart from a quick edit and revert to another article last month. Shoestringnomad (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to add this section back with more sources that are not listed as non-reliable sources. Oyveyistmir (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

See the discussion below. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

proposed Deletion of Death of Shatavia Walls
I am from NYC but I agree that this is a NPOV violation. Adams gave reasonable advice to confront your neighbor when they are shooting off fireworks. This was an accident and should not be attributed to the Borough President. This sounds like a biased argument that should be removed --User:johnqarlo (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2021 (EST)
 * I agree, as stated above, and have removed this section altogether. Shoestringnomad (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree.An article that is not favorable to an individual is not automatically a NPOV violation. The article is accurate and written from a NPOV. We can talk about specific changes that you believe violate NPOV but we can't just remove this whole section. I have added additional references about this incident. Oyveyistmir (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is in clear violation of WP:BLP. Furthermore, this relies on tabloid journalism and opinion pieces. They are not reliable sources, and shouldn't be used, especially for a constroversy that is not well established. See WP:BLPRS. The best source for this does not support the facts of this section. Shoestringnomad (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it because it is sourced only to non-reliable sources. The New York Post, in particular, is never allowed as a source of facts at Wikipedia. See WP:RSP. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Added back with fox news source. Is anyone disputing the quote that Eric Adams said “go talk to the young people or the people on your block who are using fireworks” or the death of Shatavia Walls was over a dispute regarding using fireworks? Oyveyistmir (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What is disputed is the apparent connection you are trying to make to this woman's death and Eric Adams. Sources are unreliable, do not say what you suggest they do, and show no causal link. This is libel and should be stopped. Shoestringnomad (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Shoestringnomad, I am not trying to make a connection, it is a quote from the article. Eric Adams made the statement tell neighbors to talk to people shooting fireworks instead of calling the police, there is no dispute and this is well sourced. Shatavia Walls was killed after asking a man to stop shooting off fireworks, she identifies the man as the one she told to stop shooting fireworks before passing. Which section is not sourced correctly. How is libel, it is a quote made by Mr. Adams. Oyveyistmir (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The implication is that he caused her death, and that is a serious accusation, one that has no business on Wikipedia. This is breaking so many policies on Wikipedia, which is why so many editors are pushing against the addition of this section. It has no business on this article. I will wait for consensus, but your continued edits that are disparaging of Eric Adams do not reflect well on adherence to NPOV. Shoestringnomad (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The implication is that his advice contributed to her actions. I try to keep NPOV, others have also reverted the removal of the page. Oyveyistmir (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

What hasn't been mentioned yet is that the connection to Adam's suggestion came from the victim's own mother. The Post wasn't the only one to report on this and additional sources have been added, including CBS2NewYork. Whether Adam's words actually lead to the death or not should be for readers to decide. The fact is that this was clearly a controversy in his career and one well recorded by established local media outlets. As such, I don't see how it can possibly be a violation of NPOV. However, to make it as neutral as possible, I have added a quote from Adams' statement in which he responds to the incident.--Midwood123 (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There was over a year between Adams' statement and the shooting. This linkage is ridiculous to include and the insinuation is completely in violation of WP:BLP Shoestringnomad (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

That's just false. The CBS article with the statement is from July 20, 2020. Walls was shot on July 07, 2020. Where are you getting a one year difference from? Also: CBS + Fox + NY Post + Brooklyn Paper + A bunch of other outlets we could also link ≠ "just one source". Midwood123 (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Then fix the section. It says, "During a June 2019 press conference, Eric Adams told New Yorkers to 'go talk to the young people or the people on your block who are using fireworks.' The incident in question took place much later in 2020. Is that not true? Because that's what the article says. Shoestringnomad (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

You are right, it should have said June 2020. I've fixed that now.Midwood123 (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

A pivotal source for this section ("Woman fatally shot in NYC after asking man to stop setting off fireworks". FOX News. July 19, 2020. Retrieved February 16, 2021.) does not support the preceding statements. Nowhere does it mention the comments of the mother. If there are no reliable sources for this information, it should be removed. Shoestringnomad (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

See the discussion below. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Racial comments
User:Mottezen added confusing-section tag to this section. I have changed the text to make it more clear. Does anyone think this section is still confusing?
 * Yes, this is still confusing. It lacks context, which is incredibly important for a section under "Controversies". Shoestringnomad (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What's confusing about this section is that it's unclear what he means by "out-black" and "out-white" if you are not familiar with AAVE. These quotes are also currently out of context. Mottezen (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what to do here. I don't want to editorialize. They quote stands alone and the NY times article doesn't add explanation. A NY Times reader would have just as much context.

he would “out-white” Scott Stringer by winning over white voters.[73]

This makes it clear that you can out-white someone by winning their races voters (potentionally while not being tht race). They only change that is possibly needed is to mention that Stringer is caucasian. Would this remove any confusion? Oyveyistmir (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I think everyone understood Stringer was white. What needs to be added to remove the confusion is what he meant by these statements, and in what context they were said. Additionally, as this is in the controversies section, there needs to be an explanation the controversy surrounding it. Who found these statements offensive or insensitive, and why? If the only thing that can be said regarding these statements while respecting WP:OR is what is currently written, then the "Bill de Blasio “out-blacked” William Thompson" statement needs to be removed, and the "“out-white” Scott Stringer" statement needs to be moved to a new section on his mayoral race (or removed). Mottezen (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Adams' grades
The following statement is taken out of context and misleading as presented: "By his own admission, he was a D+ student." A more complete passage from the cited source underscores this: "“I wasn’t a good student,” [Adams] declared dramatically at a Medgar Evers College graduation ceremony last year. “I was a solid D+ student…. I’m not going to beat you academically, I’m going to beat you with endurance. Never stop.” As it happened, Adams ultimately combined both academic chops and persistence. He started college while he was working as a clerk at the Brooklyn DA’s office, then had the second-highest average at the Police Academy." The issue with the way this is used is that Adams shouldn't be presumed to be citing his actual GPA as he very well have been using hyperbole. I fear this is being taken out of context. If it's used at all, we should be balanced by pointing out Adams has been noted for receiving high marks, both in the same source as well as others. One source writes that Adams "has been a gadfly since leaving the Police Academy in 1984 with the highest grades in his class." As written, I fear the current statement is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoestringnomad (talk) • contribs) 02:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Eric Adams made this statement during a graduation ceremony. City Limits (investigative journalist 501(c)(3) nonprofit) portrays the quote as fact and doesn't mention hyperbole. Adams is saying that he was a poor student but compensates with endurance. Letter grades are distinct from GPAs so the reader shouldn't confuse the two. It could make sense to include the full quote on this page.

I believe the Police Academy quote would also be a good addition to the education section. Oyveyistmir (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Grades ARE NOT distinct from GPAs in American schoolsystems. The quote is a fact, but the intent behind the quote is called into question given the context in which it was made. Further detail should be added or this out-of-context attribution should be removed. Shoestringnomad (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

He's not announcing that he has a 1.3 GPA. Saying that he's a D+ student just means that he normally recieves a D+ in classes that he takes. I will edit so the article has the full quote and make it clear that it was said at a graduation ceremony. Graduations are auspicious events and normally not places for hyperbole. Oyveyistmir (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that he is reported to have had high marks and graduated highest in his class, if consensus is that grades are important enough for inclusion (I don't think they are at this point). Shoestringnomad (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources for Early life and education
There are no primary sources for the claim that the NYPD beat Eric Adams at the age of 15. The quote from NPR is from an interview that occured ~45 years after the alleged incident. Unless there is a reliable source about this incident, the section should be removed.

"Eric Adams says New York police beat him. He became an officer to change the culture." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/12/21/eric-adams-says-new-york-police-beat-him-he-became-an-officer-to-change-the-culture/

"Adams joined the force, he has often said, after having endured a brutal beating by cops as a teenager growing up in Brooklyn. He says he was recruited by Black civil rights leaders to become a police officer as a way of fighting for reform from within." https://www.thecity.nyc/2021/2/15/22284716/eric-adams-nyc-mayoral-candidate-shooting-nypd

Adams has made statements that he has been beaten but there are no sources to support. We can leave sentence is if its changed back to "Adams claims" unless a better source is found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oyveyistmir (talk • contribs) 01:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Adams himself counts as the primary source. "Said" is neutral language, "claim" is non-neutral language. Unless there is proof on the contrary, we can use his word unquantified with attribution. I just added this attribution. Mottezen (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

using "said" instead of "claimed" makes sense and is supported by the articles. Oyveyistmir (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:CLAIM Shoestringnomad (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Mottezen do you have any sources other than Adam's quotes? If not, all statements should be written as "Adams said" or removed completetly. We can't leave statements without sources on the page. Oyveyistmir (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My concern is one of style: saying "Adams said" before each of the three sentences is redundant. Just giving attribution at the beginning of the paragraph is clear enough; he said all that follows. These statements are sourced: the inline citation at the end of the paragraph confirms this. Mottezen (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"In some types of writing, repeated usage of said is considered tedious, and writers are encouraged to employ synonyms. However, on Wikipedia, it is more important to avoid language that makes undue implications." It's okay to be redundant. A reader would be confused if the information was sourced fact or a statement from an individual. The last edit introduced some grammar issues so I resolved (this didnt involve "said") Oyveyistmir (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, you are quoting a policy on using synonyms of "said". Nowhere does it recommend to pepper the word all over a paragraph when a single instance suffices. Mottezen (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Should the Shatavia Walls paragraph be retained in the article?
The material about the shooting death of Shatavia Walls, shortly after she confronted someone about fireworks and a month after Adams urged residents to talk to such people instead of calling police, is currently in the article. I have reduced the sources to those which can be considered reliable, namely a brief Fox News report and a report from the local CBS station. Note that the New York Post has reported on this story multiple times, but it is a sensationalizing tabloid which is considered unreliable and is not allowed here as a source. Consensus should be obtained here about whether to include this paragraph or not. The guiding principles are stated at WP:BLP, namely "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutrality, Verifiability, and No original research." Further, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." -- MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be included as the sources are reliable and Adams' response is also noted, creating a neutral paragraph about a controversy in his career. If someone wants to remove the mother's exact quote and maybe replace the one currently there with another, 'softer' one, that would be fine by me. The CBS article has other quotes of her. But to remove it altogether seems inappropriate. The controversy is not just about whether Adams' statement lead to her death, but rather about the statement itself. Taking the position that people should talk to people rather than call the police is a political/social statement that is controversial, and this incident showcases that controversy. Also, on a smaller note, her name is "Walls" and not "Wells".Midwood123 (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Corrected, thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just want to add that this section contains quotes from actors only found in the New York Post. As the NYP is not depreciated, there is no reason to keep removing them. Their "general unreliability" doesn't extend to the statements of the sources they use. What until there is consensus to remove this whole section before removing sources for direct quotes.Mottezen (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Mottezen At task here is much more than the sources but rather the suitability of this section of a BLP. The story has not been shown to be considered a general controversy or having merit for inclusion. Of course the NYP will have original quotes, but they sensationalize and elicit such quotes. Shoestringnomad (talk) 08:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * At task here is much more than the sources but rather the suitability of this section of a BLP Yes, this is what we are discussing in this section, and I have no opinion either way. I was just reminding everyone that WP:V still exists and so you can't remove sources to direct quotes without removing the quotes as well, and you can't remove those quotes that make up a large part of this section without getting a consensus. There is no restrictions on using quotes from the NYP article with proper attribution and without any sensationalization. Mottezen (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And I will refer you to WP:GUNREL. Shoestringnomad (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact is that we have almost no reliable reporting about the incident. We have the NY Post, which cannot be relied on at all for facts and is known to distort quotes, and a few other sources citing the Post reporting so we can't use them either. That leaves the CBS item, possibly the only independently reported material, which the reporter based on speaking to the mother and to “police sources”. The police sources said the motive for the July 7 shooting does appear to be based on the July 4 incident where she spoke to someone about their fireworks. But the mother said nothing to the CBS reporter about Eric Adams or about his comment the previous month. There are quotations in our paragraph without sourcing, so they must have come from the removed New York Post articles. (The Post really sensationalized the case, running four or five major articles about it.) Our quote from the mother - “She watched the news. Yes, she heard it. It was probably in the back of her mind” - was obviously in response to a leading question, something the Post is notorious for, along the lines of "Did she do that because of what Eric Adams said?" The bottom line is: the only reliable information we have is that she asked someone to stop shooting off fireworks, was shot three days later, and died ten days after that. We have NO source connecting the shooting to what Adams said, except the mother after being prompted. Our article says she “heeded his advice” but we have no source for it; this appears to be an idea planted or promoted by the Post. IMO the connection to Adams is too tenuous to include this in his article. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am removing this section. The cited references:
 * * State that days after the confrontation in question, Walls and a friend were shot after leaving a building. Reports were that she was "believed" to be the target. Adams is not mentioned in the video and, in the written source, simply offers condolences. There is no link introduced or controversy mentioned.
 * * This source does not mention Adams or a controversy.
 * * Eric Adams is on video saying to call 311, not 911. Walls is not mentioned, nor is any murder.
 * This section on controversies has no no role in a WP:BLP. For these reasons, and all the other reasons brought forth by other editors in this and the two other talk sections created to remove this section, I am removing it. Shoestringnomad (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

re The controversy is not just about whether Adams' statement lead to her death, but rather about the statement itself. Taking the position that people should talk to people rather than call the police is a political/social statement that is controversial, and this incident showcases that controversy. Can you find a source for what he said in June - either a direct quote or paraphrased reporting from a mainstream reliable source? Or reporting on any controversy that it inspired at the time? It could be a reason for keeping it in the "controversies" section if in fact it was significantly controversial at the time he said it. But if it slid by unnoticed at the time, and is now brought up only because the Post made the connection, it probably doesn't belong here. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems like the original comment (before the Walls event) was first picked up by the NYPost and then included in articles by other sources such as the Brooklyn Daily Eagle and a piece in Refinery29.

Of course everything was elevated after Walls' death, but those examples (especially the Refinery29 piece) do show that the statement itself was controversial to begin with. I don't think it was controversial enough on its own to warrant an entire section (inclusion in another section would be more appropriate for that), but given the Walls shooting it was elevated to an extent where it does. Midwood123 (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing in the Refinery29 article that supports that Adams' statement was controversial. His quote is part of a larger piece about conspiracy theories about fireworks. Linking Walls death to Adams based solely on reporting from the New York Post should not stand. WP:BLPREMOVE states, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced." This section should be removed. Shoestringnomad (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What about: "Her murder was notable because she died following the advice of Brooklyn borough president Eric Adams, that community members should not call the cops to settle non-violent disputes such as over fireworks but rather address them among themselves." https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-disorder-danger-and-the-american-city-20200721-udtv2pv2g5cxre7ok5rj2zxu2m-story.html Oyveyistmir (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

also this source https://heavy.com/news/2020/07/shatavia-walls-dead/ Oyveyistmir (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Shatavia Walls should be included in the article. Its well sourced, and notable. Covered by CBS, NY Post, NY Daily News, Miami Herald, Daily Mail. And others.Yousef Raz (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you provide the actual sources and the language that warrants its inclusion? This has been discussed already, and to make any change, we need new evidence that it should be part of the article. Shoestringnomad (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The New York Daily News vetted the information and felt it was reliable information for them to publish. https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-disorder-danger-and-the-american-city-20200721-udtv2pv2g5cxre7ok5rj2zxu2m-story.html  Her murder was notable because she died following the advice of Brooklyn borough president Eric Adams, that community members should not call the cops to settle non-violent disputes such as over fireworks but rather address them among themselves.  The NY Daily News is not going to allow false and unvetted information to be published.
 * The Daily Mail same. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8539567/Brooklyn-woman-33-shot-eight-times-killed-asked-man-stop-letting-fireworks.html
 * Miami Herald https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article244358147.html :Walls had heeded the advice of Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams who, in a statement last month, urged residents to “go talk to the young people or the people on your block who are using fireworks” instead of calling the cops, the New York Post reported.
 * The NY Daily News, The UK's Daily Mail, The Miami Herald all independent of each other, all major news outlets, all vetted this story to the point that they allowed it to be published. And that's not good enough for Wikipedia?Yousef Raz (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not good enough. The Daily Mail is not a repubtable source. The NY Daily News barely is, but making this worse is that it is an opinion piece. So you're left with The Miami Herald, and that statement doesn't amount to controversy or warrant linking Adams to this death. This has been discussed at length. Shoestringnomad (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Its not about reputable, its about reliable. The Daily Mail is a reliable source, The Daily News is a reliable source, and the Miami Herald is a reliable source. How are they not reliable? Because Wikipedia editors don't think they are reputable they shouldn't be included? That's not how this is supposed to work. Its about getting it right with information that is notable and correct? Theses are major news outlets that have a a long history of being accurate. They all state facts about a high profile individual that can be refuted but no one is refuting them. Being an opinion piece doesn't matter, include the facts, and exclude the opinion.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please refer specifically to WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:BLPREMOVE, as well as WP:DEPREC and WP:BLP for more general community guidelines. Shoestringnomad (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

1994 congressional run
This section had been used to (inappropriately) highlight information unrelated to Adams' congressional run. The only information was that he ran and was defeated. An early mention that he was endorsed by the Nation of Islam without reference to any other endorsement has been removed. I am adding an expand template but there may be other ways to integrate this into other sections. Thoughts? Shoestringnomad (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Shoestringnomad, I am wondering if it will be fine if I incorporate this article . On, the Nation of Islam, I would wait until a journalist writes an in-depth article about it before inserting it back in. The only one I could find is but I cannot access it. Thoughts?Hiyournameis (talk) 21:39, 14 May, 2021 (UTC)
 * Hiyournameis, I guess I'm wondering whether it's notable enough for inclusion. If I were to write this article from scratch and base it on reported information, I doubt I would have considered a sub-section about his congressional run. Now that content has been moved under the header "Political career", the one sentence on his 1994 congressional run may be more appropriate there. What do you think? Shoestringnomad (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Shoestringnomad, I am just wondering if we should include the accusation of petition theft fabrication. However, apart from that, it fine but I suggest the sentence about Adams being a republican. It had no relation to him being a state senator. Also heads up, I am probably going to include the numerous times Adams have been investigated. This article from the The New York Times explains why it should be included Hiyournameis (talk) 18:11, 15 May, 2021 (UTC)
 * Hiyournameis, as you point out, it would make more sense to move the sentence about Adams being a Republican below "Potlitical career', but it also appears in his infobox, FWIW. Thank you for the head's up about the prior investigations. If there is more coverage than the May 13 piece, it's certainly noteworthy. Shoestringnomad (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Shoestringnomad, I have made all the changes. About Adams being a republican, we can expand on that. Hiyournameis (talk) 01:58, 16 May, 2021 (UTC)
 * Hiyournameis, he was investigated four times but "faced no charges [for the first]," "the [second] claim was declared unsubstantiated," "[the third claim] was declared unsubstantiated," and in "2006, he was cleared wrongful disclosure but found him guilty of appearing on television without permission and lost 15 vacation days." Is it really relevant to add claims that have been declared unsubstantiated to the WP:BLP? If an investigation were ongoing, that would be one issue, but this added together seems greater than the sum of its parts and meant to discredit him. I'd love other thoughts. Shoestringnomad (talk) 04:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Shoestringnomad, Personally I would have kept it with some changes. However, I think we need another user to determine if we need to insert it backHiyournameis (talk) 17:44, 16 May, 2021 (UTC)
 * Hiyournameis, I'm trying to look at this objectively using WP:BLPPUBLIC and WP:DUE. Approx. 37% of the section for Adams' policing career was written about investigations that were all dismissed. This raises the issue of balance. Shoestringnomad (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Shoestringnomad, Before you removed it, I was doing to suggest reducing the number of sentence to 1-2 for WP:DUE and add Adams's perspective to the investigations. (talk) 22:51, 16 May, 2021 (UTC)

Politico sources
Politico is a valid source and is used 9 times in this article alone. Accurate reporting that is unfavorable isn't "vandalism" and shouldn't be removed. Oyveyistmir (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Badillo Quote
Time and time again I've tried to put the actual quote from Adams back but some (in particular Shoestringnomad) keep on trying to put in a summary instead, only saying it "was seen by some to be racially divisive" without putting in Adams' actual words.

I suggest at this point we vote on whether to keep the quote in or not. A summary alone is, in my view, clear whitewashing. Midwood123 (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems arbitrary to include any part of the "spat". Adding even more detail just gives the matter undue weight to the entry. Shoestringnomad (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

This quote should remain Shoestringnomad (talk) removes any edits that contain less favorable info about Adams. Oyveyistmir (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I help by removing edits that do not improve the article, as do other editors. Your statement is untrue: The article contains unfavorable language, and I've helped to incorporate some of it. Re: "the" Badillo quote--quotes are often unnecessary when a summary will do. Encyclopedia articles are written as summaries, not detailed accounts of gossip. Shoestringnomad (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Endorsements box does not belong on this page
As of writing (June 9th), Eric Adams' page is the only page across all candidates in the 2021 Mayoral election that have the Endorsements box in his article's Mayoral election section. By any metric of measurement, whether it be national notability (e.g. Andrew Yang who does not have this under his 2021 Mayoral Campaign section but does have a separate page dedicated to endorsements for his failed 2020 Presidential campaign due to the quantity of endorsements), higher or equivalent local office positions (e.g. Shaun Donovan, Scott Stringer, Kathryn Garcia), or community support (e.g. Dianne Morales, Maya Wiley), there is not a justified reason so far as to why this box should stay on this page, especially when it takes up a significant chunk of his 2021 Mayoral campaign section which is as of writing, four sentences long. This serves no purpose but to bulk up this section to make it look more substantial than it is, and may have the effect of providing an amount of bias to less wiki-savvy readers who may not know about the full list of endorsements on the 2021 Election page, and may come away from this page thinking Adams has been endorsed heavily in the race while other candidates may only have one or two (if any at all) endorsements highlighted on their respective pages.

Additionally as was mentioned in the edit summary 1027654143 by Shoestringnomad, yes there are no explicit restrictions on using the Endorsements box in this way, but I want to highlight this excerpt from the usage guide, with respect to the box's style: "...users should keep community usage consensus in mind...". If this is highlighted for what should and shouldn't go in to the Endorsements box, then we should also apply this to factor when the Endorsements box should appear as part of the spirit of community consensus. We all want to ensure this article has a neutral point of view, but this needs to also be extended to the formatting and elements included on this page.

What I propose instead is a smaller blurb, as exists for upcoming candidates of this office as does former office holders, of notable endorsements. Outgoing Mayor Bill de Blasio doesn't have this Endorsements box for either of his Mayoral campaigns, instead a handful of the most notable were selected and added as part of the section. As does Kathryn Garcia, Scott Stringer, Andrew Yang, and Maya Wiley. I've only selected candidates in this this race and the prior Mayor, but there's countless other examples of this same consensus being applied to other politicians' personal pages beyond this particular election. Cmahns (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your latest revert is already edit-warring. If you're truly all about helping to improve this article, then do that. If you aren't going to provide an improvement, then the article was better as it was before, even if not perfect in your eyes. Many editors have edited this page without removing this. You start a talk section for appearances only. You didn't build consensus and STILL reverted a response to your bold edit. Can you help by improving instead of section blanking? Shoestringnomad (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to push back on your tone here and in your edit summaries, as it's not following WP:AGF. I started this talk section to work on building consensus, which I've also further explained my position in your second comment below. This was not for "appearances only" as you allege, but to actually discuss why I do not think these edits belong on this page. I do not however, believe this should not have existed on this page with Adams' mayoral campaign section being what it was, or that the page was better having that section previously. I refrained from saying this in the above talk section to not pass undue judgement or to make it sound like I was making a personal attack as I know you were the original author of this box in 1018368858, but this was a sloppy addition. Adding that box to a section that only existed as a small paragraph is similar in my eyes to students who squeeze the margins or hike up the font size to bloat up the page count on their assignments. As it is now with your recent edits, I think that section is much better now with what you started in 1027671684 so thanks for the updates to that.
 * As for your accusation that I may not be editing to improve this article, I would like to point to the edit I made earlier in 1027625161 was both adding new information to this article from yesterday's Politico article about the questions regarding his primary residency and better utilizing a preexisting cited source, "Top mayoral contender Eric Adams failed to register Brooklyn rental property for years", which was previously only used to prove his residency and not discussing the body of the article, that he failed to perform one of his legal responsibilities as a landlord for twelve years, which should be significant enough to document for someone wanting to be mayor of a city of 65% renters who is currently a landlord, along with pointing out some of the discrepancies in his paperwork filings with respect to his primary residence. This edit was blanked by yourself, before you had reworked it into its current form after it was restored by Oyveyistmir in 1027632692, but you again alleged in the summary in 1027645237 that this edit was still not made with the interests of improving this article, and that it was placing undue weight on "controversies" as you put it, when the contents of the edits were all factual and not alleging anything beyond that there's questions as to where Adams actually primarily lives by a national publication. I also reverted the anonymous edit in 1027645215 incorrectly attributing his residency, which was in line with similar edit you reverted in 1027603514. Whether my phrasing for the introduction sentence in 1027625161 was great or not, and I'm willing to admit that maybe it wasn't the best phrasing as it was a quick edit, I don't believe that these are not in line with being here to improve the article. Cmahns (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation. I'm glad the reworked section better suits your tastes. Shoestringnomad (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't the first use of this template in this manner. It won't be the last. See Tishaura Jones, Dick Gephardt, Austin Petersen, Brian T. Carroll, P.G. Sittenfeld, Larry Sharpe (politician),... Shoestringnomad (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I also believe should also be removed, in my opinion, for the same reasons I outlined above. For Adams specifically, if we're working on what's around for all other candidates in this very election, Adams' page was the outlier. If the consensus becomes add it to each page, then sure, let's re-add this along with adding them to every other candidate's pages. But as it stands this page was in the minority compared to the other nine major candidate's pages, seven in the same party primary as Adams, for this election, so I would argue the community's consensus for usage was previously decided based on what's already online. Cmahns (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Why nuke the controversies section?
This page has changed a lot since I last read it in March, and it appears a very bold editor has completely removed the well sourced controversies section. Why was this done? The only discussion I can see is on removing his placard abuse comments, and there was hardly a consensus there. Paragon Deku (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Because those that were deemed notable were re-worked into appropriate sections of the article. They didn't disappear. Just read the article and you'll find plenty of criticisms. Shoestringnomad (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You really need to stop editing this page so overzealously while pretending that there is consensus behind your actions. It’s getting to the point of edit warring. Paragon Deku (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you have an issue with the article when it was full of trivial, biased, tenuous controversies? Shoestringnomad (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * All of them were well sourced and seemed significant to chapters of his political career. The way you're wording this honestly makes it seem like there's some sort of hit against Adams despite those parts of the page existing well before the mayoral campaign and either way being well supported by local sources. Paragon Deku (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Undue Weight of Residency Questions
For a section about the election, the subsection detailing "Residency questions" seems a bit unbalanced, just by word count alone. See WP:WEIGHT. This level of detail provided in the lead-up to today's vote is troubling. I'm not suggesting reference to residency questions be removed--just that it be summarized as concisely as other sections of the section, e.g., his entire platform. Shoestringnomad (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's undue weight there because you moved it there. If you left it in the legitimate standalone criticism section, which are merited in some cases, it would not be undue. Don't echo Adams's "troubling" rhetoric, the vote will not be counted until mid-July anyway, despite the Trumpian claims he's already seeding about it being stolen from him, and at 3pm Eastern time after two months of absentee ballots cast, ten days of early voting, and already through 9 hours of E-day voting, it's hardly the leadup to the election. JesseRafe (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's undue weight no matter where it is quite frankly. This article had a major NPOV issue when I stumbled upon it, complete with the banner and complaints, and I still think it emphasizes negative stories and gives them far too much breathing room than they merit. I can't help but sense your disapproval of Adams, so please understand we're both pushing each other and that can only be so productive. Hence, this request for input. Shoestringnomad (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't help but notice your approval of Adams. Don't start casting aspersions, it's clear you favor Adams and are excited by him because you like that he's a vegan. I'm editing neutrally. Look at my edit history sometime. I probably have 10x as many NYC political articles edits as you have total edits. I've written from scratch dozens, maybe hundreds, of article on elected officials and city agencies here and statewide. You live in DC. I'm not claiming ownership, but I'm establishing my evenhandedness and broad experience in the general topic, not the individual. If there are negative stories here, that's because there *are* negative stories about him. He's not a saint and this is not a hagiograph. If anything, this article was overly fawning of him when I gave this my renewed attention in the past few years, having not spent much time on it since probably 2011 or 2012 when it was much smaller and he was a State Senator. JesseRafe (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * JesseRafe, that wasn't an aspersion, and I'm sorry you feel that way. Shoestringnomad (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of section Placard abuse and illegal parking
This section is poorly sourced. Furthermore, this section hardly seems noteworthy, and certainly not enough to be listed as a controversy in a biography of a living person. I recommend removing this section or providing better sources and sufficient context to clearly show how this was controversial and noteworthy. Shoestringnomad (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support removal as it is derides the subject using an anonymous tweet as a source. Mottezen (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Do not support removal The subject of this section is Eric Adams response to an anonymous tweet and quotes he made during an in person town hall which was attended by many local news reporters. Oyveyistmir (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How is this notable? Should we include everything ever said by Eric Adams at every town hall attended by reporters? Please build out the section to make it apparent how this is noteworthy. Otherwise, this section should be removed. Shoestringnomad (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's notable becuase it is unusual for public officals to compare anonymous comments to Ku Klux Klan members. 5+ local newspapers reported this story. The comments made during the townhall were also noteworthy and made it into those publications. If you find other town hall meetings that Eric Adams held and were reported by multiple local newspapers, those too would be noteworthy. This event was so notable he was even questioned about it on the radio. https://www.radio.com/wcbs880/articles/eric-adams-responds-ahead-placard-abuse-town-hall Oyveyistmir (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your opinion that it is "unusual" does not make it notable. The references don't support the controversy: WCBS Radio does not call the statement controversial, Brooklyn Paper called it the tweet a "blunder" -- which is not a controversy -- and amNY doesn't even mention the tweet at all. The fact that a town hall is documented does not make it a controversy. At the very least, this should be removed from the controversies section if not removed completely. Shoestringnomad (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Adams has also courted controversy with his own staff's use of parking placards around Borough Hall, when he said in a town hall meeting" Oyveyistmir (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * a controversy is just a "disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated." The sources don't need explicitly say that there is a controversy....but The above NY Daily News article does call it a controversy.
 * talk S0091 Does this support not removing the section? Oyveyistmir (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What is the controversy that is worth including? You've just shared a new source that does not mention anything about the "controversial" tweet. As written, this section is unclear and does not demonstrate how (or what) was so controversial that it merits its own section. Shoestringnomad (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is noteworthy. This single event was so important that many people attended a town hall and many local newspapers wrote stories about it. Can you find any other town hall that Eric Adams held that has the same or more number of news articles written about it? Oyveyistmir (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I certainly do not believe it warrants its own section as the sources appear to just to be local. I think what is needed is wider regional or national coverage. S0091 (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would national coverage be needed? He is a local politcian and there was massive local coverage. Why is this section being held to a higher standard than the rest of the page? S0091
 * Look at all of these articles about placard abuse & Eric Adams
 * https://www.amny.com/transit/parking-placard-abuse-nyc-1-35885183/
 * https://www.brooklynpaper.com/borough-president-adams-if-everyone-else-can-park-illegally-i-can-too/
 * https://brooklyneagle.com/articles/2019/09/04/seen-city-officials-parking-illegally-bp-adams-says-text-me/
 * https://patch.com/new-york/heights-dumbo/bp-calls-placard-reform-wont-move-cars-borough-hall
 * https://bklyner.com/eric-adams-placard-abuse-meeting/
 * https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/08/30/coming-tuesday-a-hot-mess-at-borough-hall-as-adams-addresses-placard-abuse/
 * https://www.radio.com/wcbs880/articles/eric-adams-responds-ahead-placard-abuse-town-hall
 * https://gothamist.com/news/eric-adams-cracks-down-borough-hall-skateboarders-continues-ignoring-placard-abuse
 * https://www.thecity.nyc/2019/9/24/21210802/brooklyn-borough-hall-parking-lot-on-parkland-gets-new-review
 * https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-edit-placards-20190906-7czl6i2r4zddpnsxhuwt22s7ly-story.html
 * https://www.kingscountypolitics.com/adams-address-constituent-concerns-on-placard-abuses/
 * Oyveyistmir (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Has Consensus been reached on this issue? Oyveyistmir's sources to seem make it sufficiently evident that this was a significant local controversy. And since Eric Adams is a local politician, such information should be included in the article. Has WP:TALKDONTREVERT occurred? I refuse to set an email (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk) (talk) talk) I see no more valid arguments for removal. This is well sourced, neutral, and factual. If we are only going to include national news on the Eric Adams pages, then most of the content would need to be removed. Oyveyistmir (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * First, why did you change the spelling of 'section' in S0091's response? Second, please propose a revised section for this alleged noteworthy controversy. The version that was written before was confusing, used poor sources, and did not, as written, demonstrate noteworthiness, particularly as worded and from reliable sources. Shoestringnomad (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Apart from being poorly written and confusing, the 'controversy' does not merit its own section. See Criticism. Shoestringnomad (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

, how is it unfair to say that the Twitter account is anonymous? It's an unverified account that is not associated with any entity. Who even runs it? It's anonymous. That's a crucial point to make sense of Adams' comment. The comment is not what is even discussed anymore. It was a blip and seems bizarre to mention on Wikipedia. That said, if you insist it stays, the anonymous aspect of the Twitter account should be noted. It's even noted in one of the sources you added: "The hour-and-a-half-long meeting was called after Adams was involved in a Twitter dispute with an anonymous account who criticized the Borough President for not doing enough to prevent NYPD officers from parking in a turning lane at Jay and Tillary Streets, one of the most dangerous intersections in Brooklyn for cyclists." Shoestringnomad (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that at a bare minimum, it is plainly WP:UNDUE if he wins the mayoralty (as seems near-certain at the moment.) The mayor of New York is a national figure, and the standard for sourcing a controversy for him is vastly higher than when Adams was just Brooklyn Borough President.  We can wait a little bit to see if any sources pick it up as part of the mayoral campaign general election, but unless someone can find more recent sources mentioning it, or national sources covering it, I think it's hard to picture how it can remain in this article a few months from now. I also take issue with several of the sources we're using even currently -  is a blog,  only mentions Adams in passing and does not directly describe his actions as illegal.  In fact, most of the higher-quality sourcing (to the extent that any of this sourcing is high-quality) is much more cautious about its wording than we are - I've revised it to reflect that. Saying that someone has done something illegal, specifically, is accusing them of a crime; per WP:BLP, we require the highest-quality sources to do so in the article voice, and per WP:BLPCRIME we must presume innocence until convicted.  Since Adams is obviously a public figure, we can possibly note the fact that people have made the accusation (although again, I'm having trouble seeing how this entire topic could possibly be WP:DUE in the long term, barring some exceptional twist), lay out any steps they've taken and impact that that accusation has had and so forth, but we cannot under any circumstances call Adams' actions illegal in the article voice using sourcing like this. --Aquillion (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's misleading to call it anonymous, not unfair. It's not like an egg account @John12345, but a placard abuse reporting account, not even necessarily a single person. I disagree with the idea that local issues need national coverage. Some of those sources are spotty, yes, but it was a spaghetti-at-the-wall reffing to prove the widespreadness of the coverage. And despite "Streetsblog" having blog in its title, it's a non-profit news source that sometimes publishes opinion, but also does factual reporting by press-credentialed journalists, as that link is an example of. It's also not a "convictable" offense, it's a citation; it's illegal parking -- a car is either legally parked or it isn't, basically a strict liability issue. I have no significant qualms with the way you rephrased it as it stands currently, but it's unlikely to ever get national coverage but that does not mean it wasn't significant locally. If we have something from a State Senator in Wyoming or a mayor of a town of 6,000 in Arkansas we don't expect national coverage, just local, and it's not any of the NYC local politicians' fault that they live in the national media capital, though it's well observed that those same papers don't cover local much or well anymore and we're left with either sensationalist tabloids or hyper-locals which might not even publish in print. JesseRafe (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 7 July 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. There is a very clear consensus that the politician is the primary topic. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

– Just make the title Eric Adams. He's going to be Mayor of NYC and is clearly the better known Eric Adams compared to some unknown musician. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Eric Adams (politician) → Eric Adams
 * Eric Adams → Eric Adams (disambiguation)
 * Support – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Adams has just been named the Democratic candidate for mayor of NYC. The only other page for an Eric Adams is Eric Adams (musician). In the last 90 days, the musician's article averaged 127 daily views while this article averaged 6,694 daily views. These seem like straightforward, uncontroversial moves. Shoestringnomad (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And I wouldn't be surprised if the 127 number is an inflated one because of the page naming! Jmill1806 (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support. Given the Democrats' dominance in NYC, whoever wins the Democratic primary will most likely win the general election, and in this case Eric Adams won. A mayor of New York will have much greater significance, both short-term and long-term, than a random musician. feminist (+) 02:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to make this clear, I oppose moving the disambiguation page. Instead, it should be deleted, because the only other topics is the singer. feminist (+) 02:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This makes sense (and was the initial request made by Pennsylvania2 before two move requests were merged). There used to be four articles on the disambig page, but I agree that now that there are just two, the disambiguation page is not needed. Shoestringnomad (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support and suggest a SNOW close. If this had been brought to my attention without an open RM proposal, I probably would have done the move unilaterally. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 02:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WP:CRYSTAL is not a valid reason. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL applies to article content, not titles. Moving this article to the base title does not present Adams as the certain winner in any way, hence CRYSTAL is not an issue. Regardless of whether Adams wins the general election, his significance as Brooklyn borough president and Democrat nominee is enough to decisively outweigh the singer. feminist (+) 05:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Per +, WP:CRYSTAL is not an issue as moving the article would not amount to presuming future events or predicting the future or favoring Adams as the winner. The obvious point here is that Adams is WP: PRIMARYTOPIC over the other Eric Adams as he is the major party nominee in the current mayoral election of the world's largest superpower's largest city.Yeungkahchun (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: Already the primary topic now, not just in the WP:CRYSTAL future. No need to decide the possibility of deleting here; afterwards, it can go to WP:AFD if desired. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, namely "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." Jmill1806 (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. I seem to be the first one !voting, all of the above were test votes. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support this page at Eric Adams no qualifier. Maybe a hatnote to (singer), if no disambiguation page is kept, seems unneeded with only two. JesseRafe (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Already applies. gidonb (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Qba0202 (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This feels obvious. Were there a large amount of folks named Eric Adams, I'd likely oppose it, but the only other one is the singer. Since he is labeled with a parenthetical anyway, I believe this likely should've been done way back during the primary. PickleG13 (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator --Vacant0 (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator Yeungkahchun (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator (the hatnote idea makes sense too). --Woko Sapien (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: The media attention he's received at this point makes him the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, even if he loses in November. ― Tartan357  Talk 22:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Hundreds of men named Eric Adams in New York. Hence why we end up with two here. But only one has the potential to be the next mayor of NYC; by de facto that makes him the primary topic whether we like it or not. Trillfendi (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support and rename plain Eric Adams. In NYC political realities, he's the NYC mayor-elect. If some unprecedented political or personal event should occur,: he could become very sick or injured, or die; something horrible should be discovered in his background; an unknown agent of some sort  could reverse the politics of NYC; the entire city  could be destroyed by a hurricane; the complete US political system could disintegrate--and he consequently happens by a weird chance to not be the next mayor, the result of the primary still makes him the best known person by that name until someone even more famous comes along.  DGG ( talk ) 14:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination; also in favor of hatnote as proposed by JesseRafe. Andrew11374265 (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. He is infinitely more notable than the musician. Just make the move and add in the usual {about} template if we want to clarify. Cpotisch (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Dyslexia
His academic turnaround is something Adams has credited to a dyslexia diagnosis in college: "I went from a D student to the dean's list." It's worth adding to the Education section if anyone finds a better source than this puff piece in the NY Post. —24.191.101.223 (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Education section is about his work as BP. This would make more sense under 'early life and education' or 'personal life'. Thanks for highlighting this, and I agree it's better to find something other than NYP. Shoestringnomad (talk)
 * I still haven't found a better source, but universal dyslexia screening has become a prominent part of Adams' campaign platform. In our "Early life and education" section, after the sentence summarizing his college degrees, would it be fair to add something like the following:
 * According the New York Post, Adams experienced an academic turnaround that he credits to a dyslexia diagnosis in college: "I went from a D student to the dean's list."
 * Further suggestions welcome. —24.191.101.223 (talk) 07:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Photos
I have been trying to add additional photos of Adams including ones of him with Biden and Pelosi from his recent trip to DC. Thoughts on adding such?
 * Does anyone have photos of his speaking at the NYC Veggie Parade a few years ago? MaynardClark (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * He needs a photo where his eyes aren't almost closed. We need government transparency more than ever these days, and he won't even look at us! (humor attempt disclaimer) (now that i gave a humor disclaimer, the humor is gone) 2600:1012:B04E:336D:BD84:DB05:E949:5B00 (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we use this picture in the infobox instead?



There are other good ones at commons, since this could probably have a better resolution, but I've seen far worse. The current one isn't even suitable for a passport. You probably couldn't unlock a phone with that expression. It's not official; it's a cropped photo of him outside. All in all, a terrible photo for an infobox... 2600:1012:B00A:986A:9C2F:4C98:36DD:E3B5 (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Accuse of nepotism. Someone should include this in his biography
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/09/new-york-mayor-eric-adams-brother-nepotism

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/12/nyregion/bernard-adams-brother-mayor.html --Someone97816 (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , it can be added. Minding WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, it's probably best to propose what language to add here before adding it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Cracker Comment
The mayor of the largest city in the US makes a racial epitaph at a community group while campaigning is a pretty significant. It is sourced by multiple RS as is his acknowledgement and subsequent is apology. It deserves its own section.Yousef Raz (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue would be well-suited to a "Public image" section, but it is not significantly notable for its own titular section. - Headphase (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A politician using a racial epitaph is beyond just public image. Its significant of a topic that has been picked up by national news agencies like Washington Post, Huffington Post, Business Insider, and Politico.Yousef Raz (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Every piece of information included an article should be notable (for example, picked up by a national news agency), so that argument is moot. Whether the section is titled Public image, Controversies, Criticism, or something else, that's fine; the point is that one off-the-cuff comment is not worthy of an entire heading in an article about an entire person, unless that comment is somehow materially reflected in a major way in the person's life or works. Headphase (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with a Controversy section.Yousef Raz (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Controversy" sections are magnets for trolls and negativity and easily lead to an unbalanced article. You're better off weaving these things into an established section. Shoestringnomad (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Trolls are controlled by reliable sources and BLP. They can be attracted but they need to follow the rules.Yousef Raz (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * That was a different user who responded to you. Headphase (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My mistake.
 * Trolls are controlled by reliable sources and BLP. They can be attracted but they need to follow the rules.Yousef Raz (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You must be new here. Shoestringnomad (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been here long enough to know that I'm correct.Yousef Raz (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:CONTROVERSYSECTIONS are bad. I am against them in all cases. The "cracker" comment is too insignificant for its own section, but whether or not to include it anywhere, I am not sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Brooklyn Borough President and eventually Mayor of New York City describing his co-workers with the use of a racial epitaph is far too significant and well sourced beyond local media to not have it's own section. Additionally this wasn't Mayor Adams first comment that is racially charged, for instance his "Go back to Iowa" comment.Yousef Raz (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"Main opponent"
Rather than continue this lame edit war,, let's resolve it here. Adams got the most votes in the D primary, followed by Garcia, then Wiley, then Yang. So how could Yang be the "Main opponent"? He got outsized attention in the campaign from his presidential run, and the voters didn't respond to it. Objectively, the will of the voters came down to Adams and Garcia. I think I may delete that column, as if we're not going to use it for the top non-Adams vote getter in each race, then it's not based on objective criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yang received more media attention, lead in more polls and received more endorsements. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Eric Adams is not a vegan
I have raised this issue at WP:VAV found here. Eric Adams is not a vegan or vegetarian as he eats fish. He should not be in the "American veganism activists" category or veganism template. Please discuss. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)