User talk:Rider11011

Adam Giambrone
What needs to be made very clear here is that Wikipedia is not a place for editorializing. A neutrally worded discussion of the criticism that his video has faced would be perfectly appropriate and acceptable content in the article. But what you were adding was not a neutral and objective summary.

For starters, the article should have (and now does) a distinct subsection specifically for his mayoral campaign — the fact that some people made fun of his campaign video is not the kind of thing that belongs in the article's introduction, as if it were one of the most basic biographical facts about him which belonged right next to his birthdate and the fact that he's Italian and the fact that he has a university degree in archaeology. We have a policy about not giving things undue weight — criticism of the video, while certainly relevant overall, is not the kind of thing that belongs right in the article's introduction.

Secondly, whatever you or I may think of the video as individuals (and believe me, I didn't like it one bit), it's not Wikipedia's place to express an opinion about it — we can only describe the video and the tenor of reaction to it. And we don't really care that some teenagers on YouTube posted parodies, either — as an encyclopedia, we care about what notable people (electoral opponents, political pundits, etc.) say about it in media of record, not about ephemeral internet memes.

And finally, the fact that a handful of people protested outside his campaign launch isn't particularly notable in and of itself. That kind of thing has happened to a lot of politicians, both on the left and the right, who inspire strong reactions in people — both Barack Obama and George W. Bush have faced it, for example — and it just doesn't really matter that much in the grand scheme of things. There's really no need to make special note of a few people carrying signs outside the bar just to prove that he's not universally popular — no politician in all of human history ever has been, and any remotely intelligent reader already knows that.

Again, to clarify, I'm not in any way opposed to the article discussing the matter in a neutral way. I've added a more neutral discussion of his campaign controversies to the appropriate subsection. But your edits appear motivated by the desire to get up on a soapbox and portray Giambrone in the most negative and unflattering light possible, not by the desire to contribute in an objective manner to an encyclopedia, and that isn't acceptable on here. You're free to hold your own opinions about whether or not Giambrone is a credible candidate for mayor — but it's not Wikipedia's role to make pronouncements on that one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)