Talk:Marisol Alcantara

Can someone cite me a reputable newspaper that says what the edit from JesseRaffe keeps saying?

The IDC dissolved. The GOP still control chamber via their majority Conference.

Why is a simple falsehood on wiki? It’s not vandalism to remove a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.203.54.150 (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The IDC is not a political party
The IDC is not a political party. Placing the IDC next to "party affiliation" is going to mislead readers who do not know the intricacies of the NYS Legislature.

One of the editors is obviously editing it with a clear bias in mind. Referring to her as not a "real democrat" shows that editor is looking to push a particular narrative, not provide objective information.

The information about her involvement in the IDC is the second sentence of the opening paragraph. The info is in the article and is not hidden. However, placing it next to party affiliation is an incorrect way to display and share that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.163.154.242 (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * That's why a reader can click the link to learn about the IDC, but it is a significant division from the party, and it is wantonly misleading to leave it out. It is not the claim that it is a party, that's why it's presented neutrally and in parentheses after the Democratic Party. JesseRafe (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting you are unbiased about this topic? You said she isn't a "real democrat" which is pretty clearly evidence of bias. She is a member of the Democratic party, and who she caucuses with is not her party affiliation. Readers can click on the link to the IDC in the second sentence of the article. Stop editorializing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.163.154.242 (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Why does IDC continue to get added to the Party line? It is not a party, and user JeffeRafe has clearly stated an unbiased opinion regarding previous edits. User is pushing an obvious bias. In previous edits they described Marisol Alcantara as "not a real democrat". How is that person supposedly editing this page in a non-biased, objective way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.163.154.242 (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not added as a party, as stated above it's clearly in parentheses. They're not Democrats outside of their ballot line, rather, they're their own caucus who support Republican leadership. All of this info is cited on the page, you're the only one pushing a bias, as you've done on numerous IDC articles. No one is deleting "Democrat" or adding "Republican" or replacing "Democrat" with "IDC", it's being listed as additional and subordinate information, i.e. in parenthesis. This is neutral, you are framing the argument as if I or others are removing the "Democrat" listing rather than refining it, so as to inform the reader. JesseRafe (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It's being added *on the line where Party goes*. That information is already included in the article. You could put all sorts of true information where it doesn't belong. And IDC doesn't belong on party line. Add a conference or caucus line if you believe that it MUST be on the sidebar. It doesn't belong next to Party, as it is not one. Putting it in parentheses does not adequately specify what it means--readers might very well assume she is in a Political Party called the IDC, which she is not. I'm pushing a bias by removing information from a place where it doesn't belong? You don't think your calling her "not a real democrat" is a signal of bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.163.154.242 (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

So, per the discussion at the WP:ANEW, I thought I'd drop by and give my thoughts. I tend to agree with you, IP, that the party line should simply be "Democratic," but to me, boy is it a close call. Obviously, per the NYT article, the IDC is a group of Democrats who have a power-sharing agreement with Republicans. They are obviously not in the traditional groupings. If someone were to glance at the page, coming away thinking "traditional Democrat" would be very wrong. In general, more 'true' information is always good. I had better stop there before I talk myself out of my chosen position! But suffice it to say, I think both sides of this argument have merit. I'd encourage you both to try to engage with that in mind. And, as I have said, this might have to be one for an RfC, and go with whatever the hive mind thinks. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure if an RfC could help put the dispute to rest, OK. While I understand the point you are making, literally the second sentence of the main paragraph discusses her being in the IDC. I do not understand how that is insufficient. You could also add someone's height or weight to their party affiliation line--and it could be true information, but it's not relevant. A persons political party is a very simple question: What party are they registered as? Anything beyond that gets into the No True Scotsman territory. The main body of the article does not hide the IDC affiliation. I don't understand the benefit--if someone glances at the page, they also might think IDC was a political party, if it was listed on the sidebar on that line! A maxim I use in writing is "Do not write so that you may be understood, instead write so that you cannot be misunderstood." Now, this isn't my personal journal to write in that style, but I think that maxim is also of use for an online encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.163.154.242 (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You persist in being disingenuous in the representation of the facts. Nowhere does it claim that IDC is the party. It still says "Democrat". The putative reader who only glanced at the infobox would be at a disservice there because they would be under the impression that this person is a regular Democratic State Senator, and thus in the minority party, etc etc. While she is a registered Democrat (not disputed), she is a member of the IDC and thus shares power with the Republicans as the majority coalition. The status quo presentation of the infobox reads "Democrat (IDC)", so please stop making the argument that it reads that IDC is anyway labeled as the party, it's simply not the case. The parenthesis is an obvious indicator of subordination and refinement, it indicates a specific kind of Democrat. You're the only one making the case that IDC does not belong, and you're an SPA at that and have probably used a few other accounts (as mentioned on the ANEW). Every other article on the encyclopedia makes a top-level distinction between NY State Senators who are Democrats and those in the IDC. In fact, the template at the bottom even colors them differently! They're also colored and labeled differently at New York State Senate, it's really an objective and neutral reporting -- that is verified by the reliable sources, to emphasize IDC membership, not your personal opinion. There is no reason other than a COI (notice IP has not made a declaration that she does not have a COI) to want to downplay this association, it does a disservice to the reader and confuses anyone unfamiliar with the specific situation in the NYS Senate. JesseRafe (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Now you've removed information about legislative efforts calling it vacuous. What qualifies as important information about the legislative efforts of a currently elected official? It really seems like you have an axe to grind, and I hope that other wiki mods will be able to adjudicate this dispute. How does one call for a RfC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.163.154.242 (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have an axe to grind. It's easily seen that I watch hundreds of New York political articles based on my edit history, I've even written dozens, and throughout I remove obvious biased grandstanding, which occurs quite frequently. You've used weasel words and partiality in an attempt to make the politician you obviously have some sort of relation with seem more palatable. Vacuous means contentless, as in: "so and so supports such and such" --which is not encyclopedic. When they actually do something and it's cited, that's encyclopedic (Cf. everything else on Alcantara's or others' pages), but blanket statements about what they support are better suited for their campaign website or social media. IDC is getting unfavorable press lately and you are trying to diminish Alcantara's association with the IDC, this is an obvious COI. Every other article on individual IDC members, the Senate page itself, and the template at the bottom of this very page all treat IDC membership like a party-level distinction akin to Dem/Rep. This edit that you take umbrage with doesn't even go that far, but is instead a compromise listing IDC subordinately. You also never seem to respond to any actual comments or rationale, acting as an WP:ICANTHEARYOU editor, and for the third time I mention it, you've still yet to make any statement regarding whether you have a COI with the subject of the article. JesseRafe (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Update to last line. I didn't "WHOIS" query the IP before, though I should have... the COI is all the more obvious given you are editing from the New York State Senate Legislative Office Buildingas seen here. JesseRafe (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)