Talk:Tom Ammiano

Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence
Is it correct to say that the Sisters of Perpetual indulgence "mock" the Catholic Church, rather than "are critical of" the Church? I think "mock" fits their activity very well. Why pussyfoot around? Griot 06:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How about we split the difference between "mock" and "critical" and just use "parody" as the term?

On a side note, if you do revert edits, could you make sure you don't revert grammatical and spelling mistakes at the same time? SimonBillenness 01:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Parody's okay. Side note? Griot 07:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

content removed
The above content, although probably true, was removed for copyright violation. Consider reworking and rewording anything appropriate back into the article. Banj e b oi   00:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

”Kiss my gay/faggot ass”
Unfortunately, the page says Ammiano was muttering ”Kiss my gay ass”, whereas in videos such as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyVLwRvA9BE he can be clearly heard shouting ”Kiss my faggot ass”. Now, Ammiano’s official version is that he said ”gay” and it seems US political decorum requires that everyone respect this ... even when we can all see for ourselves that it’s not true. I suppose no ”reputable source” will report the real wording, so we can’t report it on Wikipedia either, as it would be ”original research”. So are we stuck with reporting a factual error, even though we all know it’s a factual error?
 * Yes, find a reliable source that shows your version otherwise it remains. -- Banj e  b oi   00:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Title for the section concerning Schwarzenegger veto message
What is the best section title for the section concerning Schwarzenegger's veto message which acrostically says "I Fuck You"?

Comments previously is that "I Fuck You" is vulgar. Wikipedia doesn't censor. The issue was the message "I Fuck You" rather than the memo itself. And that controversy is a word we try to avoid and isn't appropriate here.


 * Previous headings up to now have been:


 * Schwarzenegger "I Fuck You" veto memo
 * Schwarzenegger letter controversy
 * Schwarzenegger "I Fuck You" acrostic message
 * Schwarzenegger memo controversy

Any help appreciated to come to the best decision. -- Banj e b oi   20:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "Schwarzenegger acrostic memo". I don't think it accomplishes anything useful to put the word "fuck" in the heading.  It is fine to put it in the paragraph. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fuck is already in the paragraph, it's the only reason the content is even there. Likewise the issue isn't that there was a memo but that it spelled "I Fuck You" which is surprisingly offensive for any elected official to do. -- Banj e  b oi   00:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * IMHO,"Schwarzenegger letter controversy" would be the best section title. It would accurately describe the content, and avoid controversy. The word in question is already in the section, so there is little need to state it again. If anyone is curious, they can simply scroll down. I am 100 against censorship, the reason I bring forth this suggestion is that I believe this would help cool off some of the controversy surrounding the section title, and, as you said, controversy is a word we try to avoid. MMS2013 02:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MMS2013 (talk • contribs)
 * I live in California and saw some of the press coverage of that thing when it happened. I'm not convinced there was a controversy.  It was treated as more of a "news of the weird" item, or at any rate, as after-the-fact reporting.  There was some pro forma posturing on both sides, but the underlying situation (that there is a lot of rancor in the state capital) was transparent, and was not exactly news. 67.117.145.149 (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Schwarzenegger veto memo" is good enough Hekerui (talk) 08:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's needlessly vague, and this content isn't here because of the memo but the "I Fuck You" message. -- Banj e  b oi   20:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's only vague when there are plentora veto messages to mix up, and there aren't. Hekerui (talk) 08:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Schwarzenegger "I Fuck You" acrostic message or if we feel we must censor - which we shouldn't, "Schwarzenegger acrostic message". It's accurate, as should we strive to be. -- Banj e  b oi   20:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no need to quote the actual message in the section title, and editorially it makes it a bit of an anticlimax. Any variation on the 'Schwarzenegger veto memo' theme is acceptable. 'Controversy' should be kept for occasions when there is a prolonged dispute involving active conflicting views. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent point, would "Schwarzenegger acrostic message" work? I feel the "memo" part is inaccurate as the memo itself was not the issue, the message hidden within was. -- Banj e  b oi   00:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a rather uncommon word, so I'm not so positive on that. Hekerui (talk) 08:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's wikilinked in the text though, then a reader can sort it out, if the current content doesn't give them enough context. -- Banj e  b oi   16:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)