Talk:Richard A. Carranza

Lawsuit
@JesseRafe:   Please explain to a newbie how literal front page news is "not news"? 68.173.57.123 (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is news, this is not news, it's an encyclopedia. More info at WP:NOTNEWS. JesseRafe (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * He's an apparatchik that nobody would have heard of if not for the litigation that has resulted from his racist left-wing agenda. He hates Asians for their success, and took steps to screw them over by denying them places that they earned in selective schools .2601:647:4F00:7D:34F1:B1AE:3186:FF6A (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * One thing to keep in mind Re: WP:NOTNEWS is that Wikipedia encourages adding many forms of information in the news, but not all forms of the news should be included. Typically "routine coverage" (expected day-to-day events), tabloid coverage, and minor trivia are not to be included, while major developments are to be included. Please consult the section for further information. Since it's common for school districts to get lawsuits, I would wait and see on the lawsuit to see how it progresses.
 * I reviewed the edit here and edit here and I think the letter to the super may in fact be significant news which can be included in the article. It is a big deal when the city council calls for the superintendent's firing. This is the kind of news that Wikipedia wants! As for the lawsuit, I'm not sure yet. It's something that we can wait and see on. I do think in the future that when you introduce NOTNews to inexperienced editors, explain how the guideline distinguishes, and tell them how they can wait and see on whether to include/not include a news development.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As a point of order, the City Council as a deliberative and legislative body did not call for the chancellor's firing. It read to me as political theater and was being added to the article in a partisan manner. There has been no further updates in this "cause" since the minor story a few weeks ago. It could be mentioned, though, but in more neutral terms than what was originally written. As to your last point, I could, but there's no way to know who is and isn't new, especially when this was just a few hours after a prior edit was made to weasel/embellish a potentially embarrassing fact. I'll make a point to explain more detailed in edit summaries going forward. Thanks, JesseRafe (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Yes, it's a good point that city council as a whole/as a body did not, just nine individual members (I wish I could edit the edit summaries, but alas). Re: new users, one is generally supposed to assume that a person with few edits is a new user, but there are editing behaviors that can be used to determine if they're not new... if they seem to know a lot of Wikipedia policies off the bat and/or edit the same set of articles a previous user had. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: 23 members supporting him, that's a great edit, and that's the best way to respond to incomplete details; having this provides a sense of how much support Carranza has on the NYC city council. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)