Talk:Deb Goldberg

Dispute

So what's the problem that we need addressed? Weegeerunner (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

A section was created regarding Deb Goldberg's intimidation of a job applicant. It's been all over the Boston news for more than a week now, including on the cover of today's Boston Globe. The paragraph was blanked by somebody who then added campaign literature about Goldberg's hopes and aspirations for the office she holds. When it was replaced, it was blanked again with the vague notation "incorrect and loosely sourced." All facts in the article were taken from the Boston Globe and it's now sourced from three different articles. Governoradams (talk)

Seems well sourced. What does the other side half to say? Weegeerunner (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there appear to be two separate WP:COI editors in play: Msheaff (talk · contribs) appears to want to write this article as a campaign ad while Governoradams (talk · contribs) appears to want to air a single controversial event in Goldberg's past. Neither user appears to be maintaing neutrality. I have walked the article back to the version prior to either one editing.

As for the controversy issue, it does appear to be well-sources, but the section that has been added gives it undue weight.

I recommend removing the material added by Msheaff as overtly promotional and a likely copyright violation. I further recommend rewriting the extensive controversy section as follows:

 ==Controversy==
 In November 2014, it was reported that Goldberg had admonished an employee of 
 Adoptions with Love for seeking employment with the State Treasurer's office 
 without first informing her current employer of her job seeking plans. 
 Goldberg came to this knowledge in her official capacity as Treasurer-elect, 
 and her actions were seen as a breech of ethics. (Cite sources as appropriate). 

Any more detailed report of the controversy would give it undue weight. (My opinion of course, your mileage may vary.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds logical to me. Governoradams (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Any other inputs? @Weegeerunner:? @Msheaff:? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: a couple thoughts - the items you deleted were actual initiatives and policies that Goldberg has implemented/announced after being sworn in as Treasurer. They were not taken or cited from her campaign literature or her campaign website. They were cited by news articles from across the state as well as from the official Massachusetts Treasury website. Also in regards to the controversy, you say that it's been "all over" the Boston news for over a week. One newspaper carried the story which had some factual errors in it. It ran for one day. The same newspaper then wrote 1 editorial (an opinion piece) and a columnist wrote an opinion piece about it as well. Given that the actual initiatives and accomplishments that were cited were deemed "not neutral" by this forum, i would think that actual opinion pieces would be considered not neutral as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.243.8.15 (talk • contribs)

@146.243.8.15: The items I deleted may well be actual initiatives, but the writing about those initiatives was unacceptably promotional. I'm actually surprised that the official State Treasurer's website would write about Goldberg in such unabashedly glowing terms, but that's their business. Our business is writing a neutral encyclopedia, and that text had no business here. Using that site as a reference, we can add neutral text about those initiatives, but since she has only been in office a few months, it might be a bit of a crystal ball to say whether those initiatives have had any real effect, so I'd recommend waiting a while to see what comes of them. As for the news story, it was not I who said the story has been "all over" the Boston news, that was Governoradams. I did check several of the sources and found that the controversy is mentioned. It merits mention in this article, just not with as much weight as it had been previously given. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

A couple of observations - first of all, should you really be using a Commonwealth of Massachusetts computer (146.243.8.15) to be posting comments in favor of the treasurer? That's news in and of itself. Second, what were the "factual errors" in the Boston Globe article? To my knowledge, they never ran any corrections. Governoradams (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Given the lack of further comment, I have moved forward with my suggestion, adding the reduced Controversy section. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)