This seems like a campaign ad, written by Carl DeMaio himself. It does not seem to have neutral perspective. Futurehouse ( talk) 18:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
DeMaio's restroom controversy (see, e.g., http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/politics/Carl-DeMaio-Allegations-Masturbation-Bathroom-City-Hall-Voice-of-OC-221379541.html) is appropriate for inclusion. The accusation was made by credible individuals (fellow city council members), was reported by numerous credible sources, and DeMaio himself thought the accusation important enough to take a polygraph test and make public comments. I see no basis for not including it. MelanieN's claim that the accusation was "poorly sourced" does not appear to be correct, as it was reported by many news agencies and based on public allegations made by multiple city council members. KFM2 ( talk) 20:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Case in point: "Prior to winning his seat on the City Council, DeMaio was best known in San Diego as the City Hall watchdog. He helped uncover the city’s financial and ethical problems. After years of prodding city leaders to enact reforms, a frustrated DeMaio decided to run for City Council. DeMaio’s pledge to the voters was simple: "Clean Up City Hall". His platform included balancing the budget, reforming the pension system, fixing crumbling infrastructure, and restoring ethics and accountability to every level of city government. Refusing to shed his watchdog roots, DeMaio pledged "to continue to serve as the eyes and ears of the taxpayers on the City Council.""
Everything in bold is blatant POV. Bluerondo ( talk) 21:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleting the entire page is a pretty extreme step to take for uncited information. Keep in mind, the information isn't false, it's just not cited. If you delete this page then you'd have to delete 9 out of 10 bio's on Wikipedia.
The guy's an elected city offical, currently not campaigning for anything. Plus give the public some credit. They know what they're getting when they look at wikipedia and see the information's not cited.
In the meantime, check out these articles from Union Tribune and CityBeat. I'm sure the info will be properly cited sooner rather than later.
Newcomer businessman wants a shot at fixing S.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDresident ( talk • contribs) 00:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
So many people use Wikipedia because of its credibility, so I agree with you completely. All the information on this site should be cited. Period. I just think it would be unfortunate to delete the entire page because of citation problems. Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.255.31 ( talk) 06:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Dave Maass: I wrote the CityBeat story pointing out this Wikipedia conflict and so I feel I now have a conflict that prevents me from editing this page. I would like to point out a few recommended edits.
- "DeMaio has arguably been the leading voice for fiscal responsibility and reform on the City Council." This line should be deleted. Right now, the citation links to a 2004 story. DeMaio was elected in 2008, therefore the story cannot possibly support the statement.
- "The article also stated that the Wikipedia pages of councilmembers Tony Young, Todd Gloria, Sherri Lightner and Marti Emerald were all "tainted with editorial," although it did not indicate whether the pages had been self-created or edited." This is irrelevant and has been added for spin, not for the sake of a complete and accurate page.
- Also, in response to the user who stated that DeMaio is not running for anything; he recently took out paperwork to run for Mayor of San Diego.
- Finally, CityBeat thanked the diligent Wikipedia users working on DeMaio's page in this week's issue. http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-8686-on-loughner-and-jacobs.html
—Preceding unsigned comment added by DAVE MAASS) 23:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Here's another recommended edit: - "In 2005, the New York Times dubbed him "San Diego's Taxpayer Watchdog." This is attributed to the New York Times, which did not award him any title of the kind, especially not one that should be capitalized. The actual line is "De Maio, the San Diego watchdog, is lobbying for a federal law that would impose Erisa-type rules on public plans," so the phrasing is also inaccurate. In fact, "San Diego's Taxpayer Watchdog" is the name DeMaio uses to describe himself on his campaign page http://www.votecarldemaio.com/. The use of the New York Times is meant only to justify that title. - Dave Maass —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.70.179.117 ( talk) 15:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Leave it to a Citybeat reporter like Dave Maass to say he has a conflict of interest and then go ahead and give his recommendations for changes anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eno hth ( talk • contribs) 07:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
It is also quite disturbing that it seems that Athene cunicularia is obviously in correspondence with Dave Maass [1] This is highly disturbing for the well being of Wikipedia that a Journeyman Editor and a member of the Guild of Copy Editors is discussing edits with a self professed biased reporter like Dave Maass [1] Hopefully someone higher up will review this problem before Athene cunicularia deletes this remark. Eno hth ( talk) 05:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Um...I said I had a conflict because it was my story cited and, unlike some users, I do not feel it is proper to edit Wikipedia entries that are in direct reference to one's work. If you read the guidelines, the discussion page is where people with these types of conflicts should suggest edits.
Further, I do not see what is so "disturbing" about contacting Wikipedia editors to get their opinion on the issue at stake. You are welcome to contact me as well: davem@sdcitybeat.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maassive ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Maass, You claimed that you have a conflict of interest since you wrote the story on Demaio's page so you can no longer edit the page, yet you gave your recommendations on what should be edited. If you don't understand the irony and inconsistency then I don't know how to help you. Eno hth ( talk) 05:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
References
Today I deleted a claim that was not supported by the references it cited - namely, the claim that DeMaio moved to San Diego "to draw attention to the city's budget and pension problems". The references not only don't support that claim, they state the opposite:
TB: You came to San Diego five years ago. Why San Diego? Did you know it was going to be a great case study in mismanagement?
CD: Actually, no. Southern California is my home, and I feel like a fish out of water when I’m in Washington, D.C. Also, my companies do a lot of conferences and forums for corporate executives, and they don’t want to go to Washington. They like San Diego.
TB: So San Diego’s dysfunctional government was just a bonus.
CD: When we originally conceived of The Performance Institute, we had just completed a state of California project where we uncovered raids on special funds, massive hidden deficits, debt being passed on from year to year, broken programs, a culture of incompetence. So we said let’s focus on something positive next; let’s go to a well-managed city.
Within hours my change was reverted without comment by a WP:Single purpose account named User:Eno hth. I am going to re-revert it and I expect them to come to the discussion page and defend their edit. -- MelanieN ( talk) 06:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
addition is sufficient with the citation provided. Thank you so much for your hard work and diligence on this page..... Eno hth ( talk) 06:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I found this article: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1001/101001p1.htm stating that Carl DeMaio was the director of government redesign at the Reason Public Policy Institute in 2001. The article doesn't say anything about this -- and actually doesn't say what he was doing from 1999-2002. It would be good to look into to fill out this part of his career. XinJeisan ( talk) 16:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Since all good articles should have both criticism and praise if appropriately sourced, DeMaio's article probably should have a general criticism section. This article from 2005: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050518/news_1n18carl.html could be used as a basis for that. Probably could expand the wikipedia controversy section to a more general criticism section. I think I have used up my daily allotment of wiki-editing time so I'll leave it to someone else to do so, if interested. XinJeisan ( talk) 16:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm about to merge the TPI article into Thompson Publishing. here is the info from Carl DeMaio on that page. Most of it is pretty POV but in case anything is here that might be taken out and put into the main article I'll paste it here:
Can't believe I didn't sign the above when I posted it on Feb 20. XinJeisan ( talk) 08:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Today the San Diego Union-Tribune formally credited Carl DeMaio as the person who "led the campaign against" Proposition D, last year's sales tax. When DeMaio's added that claim unsourced into this page I recommended its deletion. Now that a major daily newspaper has made the claim, I think that it would be appropriate to reinsert it, but perhaps with the qualification that he was not the chairman of the No on D committee and that other driving forces for the campaign may disagree.
"Shortly after the voters’ thumping of the sales tax increase proposed in San Diego’s Proposition D last November, this editorial page called for Mayor Jerry Sanders, who had led the campaign in favor of it, and Councilman Carl DeMaio, who led the campaign against it, to work together to achieve the financial reforms that were still badly needed."
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/mar/20/in-search-of-compromise/
I for one don't find the U-T's statement particularly credible since City Councilmember Donna Frye led the Prop D campaign as much as Mayor Sanders did, but that doesn't change the fact that the U-T said it.
Now all that said, I'll also say there is a case to be made that Prop D as a single failed ballot measure may not be historically notable enough for inclusion on this page.
- Maassive ( talk) 15:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Question about: "In the fall of 2010, DeMaio campaigned against a proposal to boost the city's sales tax by a half-a-billion dollars over five years."
The proposal would have increased sales tax by a fraction of a percentage, should the article reflect this instead of the projected revenue? While the projected revenue may turn out to be accurate, it is still not a fact as of this writing. Just my opinion. 2CrudeDudes ( talk) 20:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Why is...
"District 5, with a median household income (as of 2008) of $95,211, is the second most wealthy district of San Diego's eight electoral districts. It includes the neighborhoods of...."
...included in an article about Carl DeMaio (and the second paragraph, no less)? What does this have to do with him? This isn't an article about District 5. I recommend removal. 2CrudeDudes ( talk) 20:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Although it is well known that Twitter is not a WP:RS, primary self published sources can be used if it is by the subject, and the language of the content indicates such. Should the tweet by the subject of the sentence, David Rolland, be included in this article as it is relevant regarding the secondary part of the paragraph?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the "reliable source" tag again. There are at least a few reasons why the blog post qualifies as a reliable source. First, the writer of the blog post, Dave Maass, is a reliable source. Second, San Diego CityBeat, which runs the blog, qualifies as a reliable source. Third, the statement that the source supports ("In the article, DeMaio's spokesman confirmed that his office had created and edited the page") is based on a direct quote by DeMaio's spokesman ("I apologize, I was not aware of Wikipedia’s policy"). Athene cunicularia ( talk) 17:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
it IS supported by WP:RSN.
Could somebody please add his class year? Then he could be added to the "Notable Alumni" on the school's article. Fatidiot1234 ( talk) 18:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering if these should be included on the page.
The San Diego ethics committee fined the SuperPac , Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, for creating the erroneous group called "Conservatives for Gay Rights supporting DeMaio for mayor" the group was set-up by Democratic consultant, Jesus Cardenas , and Democratic organizer, Cynara Velazquez, both of whom work(ed) on Filmer's 2012 campaign and David Alvarez's current mayoral campaign. The most recent fine was imposed as the group photoshopped DeMaio into a group of drag queens and then sent the fake photos to elderly and black communities in an effort to suppress DeMaio's support. The same SuperPac was also fined in 2012 for setting-up robo-calls 6 days before the election and asked "are you voting for Filmer or DeMaio?" if the answer was Filmer the phone call ended, if they said DeMaio, the call then proceeded to ask questions like "if you knew DeMaio was the first openly gay man elected to our San Diego Council, would you still vote for him?"
Read the article: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Oct/11/gay-baiting-carl-demaio-ads-revealed/?#article-copy
When DeMaio was asked why no LGBT groups came to his aid, he said "Despite claims that they insist on tolerance, diversity, and acceptance for all, I suspect they want to keep their alliance with unions so they don't upset their funding source.The democratic groups need to keep the GOP as the bogeyman, because if republicans are no longer a threat, they'll lose all funding."
76.4.109.9 ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.109.9 ( talk) 10:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Is a Wikipedia edit war really notable enough to include on Carl DeMaio's page, let alone merit it its own section? While this may have been interesting enough to draw a couple of local media mentions at the time, I'm not sure that it is notable enough to continue to include it in the article. What do others think? mcd51 ( talk) 03:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I understand this article started as puff piece, with much of the puffery removed by MelanieN et al. In line with keeping the article simple, I think there is some more puffery that needs removing:
The article gives good placement to a claim that DeMaio was a member of the "Citizens Budget Project," but this "project" appears to be nothing more than an astroturf "initiative" of DeMaio's own company, the "Performance Institute" (see http://www.performanceinstitute.org/2008/08/05/san-diego-citizens-budget-plan/), sponsored, directed, and funded in large part by DeMaio himself, and dissolved/reformed at his convenience (see http://ballotpedia.org/San_Diego_Citizens_for_Accountable_Government). I vote to remove the astroturf, or alternatively, to start a new section that lists and clarifies DeMaio's various interlinked businesses/think tanks/front groups. KFM2 ( talk) 21:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I have always been very dubious of his Oliver Twist-like childhood stories - abandoned, taken in by Jesuits, etc. Now reading sources I find that some of the facts provided are contradictory - for example, how old he was when his mother died. This reference says she died when he was 13, whereupon his father abandoned the family. So does this one, adding that the father was abusive. But the article says she died in 1990, when he would have been 15 or 16. This source confirms age 15 and says he was the one who severed ties with his father. The wording used everywhere, "taken in by Jesuits", makes him sound like some abandoned waif, not like a teenager of 15. I'm just not sure what to believe, and (more to the point) how much about his childhood we should include in the article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
DeMaio was born in 1974 in Dubuque, Iowa to a pair of teachers, Carl Joseph DeMaio and Diane M. DeMaio (née Elgin). He spent his early childhood in Orange County, California, where his family moved in the late 1970s. He attended St. Catherine's Military Academy, a Catholic school in Anaheim, through eighth grade; in 1989 he got a scholarship to Georgetown Preparatory School. [1] His mother died in 1990, two weeks after his father abandoned the family. [2] He graduated from Georgetown Prep in 1993, then attended Georgetown University, where he received a degree in International Politics and Business. [3]
Suggestions: 1. Move political intership to 'political career' section. 2. Reword 'landing a job' phrase, which was inserted by DeMaio campaign. 3. Delete "...as a result of his work with the Performance Institute" as unsupported (because, of the two sources linked, CityBeat says nothing about his motivation, and SDMagazine source quotes him as saying a major, perhaps primary motivation, was he wanted to come back home: "Southern California is my home, and I feel like a fish out of water when I’m in Washington, D.C." http://www.sandiegomagazine.com/San-Diego-Magazine/April-2007/Carl-DeMaio/. 4. Restore 'controversial' to "DeMaio is known for his *controversial* advocacy of change in San Diego's budget process," since source repeatedly goes out of its way to note strong reactions (both for and against) to DeMaio and his proposals. Consider expanding into a general paragraph on DeMaio's pre-Council budget stances, including his release of proposals and their reception. The stuff discovered about Citizens Budget Project (now deleted) may be useful. -- KFM2 ( talk) 23:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The section is important and deserves ample space, but I think it has an awful lot of DeMaio campaign/partisanship in it. Suggestions:
(1) First paragraph: "Driving force" bit should be deleted because it is unsourced and disputable (see also note 3). Just say he sponsored or co-sponsored or whatever.
(2) First paragraph: Reword description of prop B to use the Prop's own description of itself ( http://www.sandiego.gov/city-clerk/elections/city/pdf/retirementcharteramendment.pdf), along the lines of "Proposition B proposed (1) limiting of compensation used to calculate city employee pension benefits; (2) eliminating defined-benefit pensions for many new city employees, substituting a defined-contribution (401(k)-style) plan; (3) requiring substantially equal pension contributions from the City and employees; and (4) eliminating the right of employees/retirees to vote to change their benefits."
(3) Second paragraph: That DeMaio authored the text or was "the" (i.e., sole) central figure is unsupported by source and possibly incorrect (from what I can tell, the final prop text was based on compromise language between two competing proposals, one by DeMaio and one by the mayor--see http://ballotpedia.org/San_Diego_Pension_Reform_Initiative,_Proposition_B_(June_2012), but see also http://www.kusi.com/story/14322160/city-leaders-propose-pension-reforms-for-the-june-ballot (saying negotiations broke down)--and supported by all of them. Not sure what to believe. I think delete the whole first sentence, and dedicate that paragraph solely to the ballot signature issue.
(4) Third paragraph: Recommend deletion because it's (a) duplicative of the description in paragraph 1 and (b) wholly unsourced.
(5) For readability, move the fourth paragraph (fiscal impact) up to just after the prop description and just before the ballot signature paragraph. -- KFM2 ( talk) 07:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
San Diego's City Attorney estimated that Proposition B would cost the city $54 million in its first three years of implementation, with overall 30-year inflation-adjusted savings up to $525 million. The savings could be less if the City Council overrode the employee salary freeze with a 2/3 vote from 2012 to 2018. [4] CFredkin ( talk) 22:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
(6) The article contained this line about ballot signatures: "Because the reform required a change to the City of San Diego’s charter, the signatures of 94,000 voters (5% of the city’s electorate) were needed to gain access to the ballot. Ultimately, DeMaio submitted 145,000 signatures," citing to
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/politics/Carl-DeMaio-San-Diego-Pension-Reform-Initiative-130868953.html. There are two problems I see:
(a) 94,000 smelled fishy to me. 94,000 can't possibly be 5% of SD's electorate, because that would imply SD has about 3.7 million people. So I looked at the San Diego election site, and they say the requirement is actually 15%, which sure enough equals 99,019 in 2014. (See http://www.sandiego.gov/city-clerk/elections/process/, click on "Current Signature Requirements.") I think the original source simply made an error and typed 5% when they meant 15%. Unfortunately, I could not find a source that expressly said 15% in 2012, which is what we need. I suppose we could cite to the relevant California Election Code.
(b) The NBCSD source said there were 145,000 signatures, but every other source (including NBCSD at a later date) said 116,000 signatures. See http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Feb/12/sd-pension-ruling-perb/ (116,000); http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Proposition-B-Pension-Reform-Process-Faulted-by-Labor-Agency-Judge-191136161.html (116,000); http://www.ocregister.com/articles/pension-498192-city-reform.html (DeMaio quoted as saying over 50,000); http://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/02/perb-smacks-down-prop-b-pension-reform-initiative-ruling-explained/ ("over 115,000"). My guess is that the 145,000 (if it ever existed) was before fraud detection, and it got reduced to 116k once they deleted duplicates/invalids. Presumably we'd prefer to go with 116k, rather than use 145k and need a caveat about some being deleted as fraudulent, right?
So what do you think? We could just drop in 15% and 116,000, but I don't see any sources expressly saying 15% in 2012 or that the 116,000 were handed in by DeMaio in particular. We do have sources for saying simply "94,000" (no percentage) and "supporters" (not DeMaio particularly) turned in 116,000. Or maybe just scrap the whole sentence? -- KFM2 ( talk) 09:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
References
Several of you have been reverting each other about whether to put "openly gay" in the lead paragraph of the article. The fact that he is gay is already cited in the main body of the text. To find out how we generally do this, I checked the pages of several other LGBT politicians from the San Diego area. I found that in three out of four cases (Todd Gloria, Christine Kehoe and Dave Roberts) that fact is NOT mentioned in the lead paragraph, only in the body of the text. In the fourth case (Toni Atkins) the fact that she is a lesbian was mentioned in the lead only because it was a significant "first" for some of her positions. So I have concluded that it is not Wikipedia practice to put this in the lead unless it has particular relevance to their notability. I deleted it. Also, there is no need for the breathlessly exclamatory item from the National Journal that kept being added to External Links; that's the wrong place for it, and his orientation is already cited to Reliable Sources in the body of the article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
All that being said, if the subject of this article becomes the first openly homosexual Republican congressperson, than that might be relevant to the subject's notability; as that is not presently the case, and the subject's notability isn't tied to their sexual preference, than per MOS, it should be excluded, and be noted in the body of the article (as is presently the case).-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 05:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.
I have reverted a
good faith
per
WP:BURDEN. I have only been able to find a single endorsement prior to the 2012 primary, and had
previously added it as a reliable source to the article. I have yet to find this alleged second SDUT front page endorsement, if others can, please add it and then edit the content. Otherwise the text "before the June 2012 primary and published two front-page endorsements" can not be
verified and thus should not be in the article.
I have seen a verbatim statement "published two front-page endorsements of DeMaio." from the
AP, however that does not give a time frame of it occurring before the June 2012 primary. There is a
claim made by the VoSD, however I have not been able to find it verified directly from the UT, which regularly publishes their printed articles online, and have only been able to find one editorial before the June 2012 primary. Therefore, given that this is a
biography of a living person, and that I cannot find this second endorsement editorial, until it can be found, I say we exclude it until it is found, if it in-fact exist.--
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk)
02:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
It's satisfactory, IMHO.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 04:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
This edit is not supported by the source provided. CFredkin ( talk) 15:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
The statement that Hueso was a political opponent of DeMaio is supported by the following in the U-T San Diego source already provided: "At the time, they were both on the City Council and had sharp disagreements over many issues." Also both sources mention the fact that Hueso is a Democrat. CFredkin ( talk) 23:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Why is it relevant that the subject did not receive an endorsement? This is not about the subject, and thus should not be included, nor should it have been re-added. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 04:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
(From Wikipedia) On 3 September 2014, Taylor dropped out of the race, leaving independent Greg Orman. [16] The New Republic described the withdrawal of Taylor in light of the opinion of Chris Reeves, "a Kansas City Network Consultant who works with Democratic candidates" who said that “The moment Jim Sherow, a Democrat, said he couldn’t endorse him, it was over.”
Activist ( talk) 00:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
(Also from Wikipedia) The Christian Coalition of America, which exerted considerable impact on the Republican State Central Committee, was led in Louisiana by its national director and vice president, Billy McCormack, then the pastor of University Worship Center in Shreveport. The coalition was accused of having failed to investigate Duke in the early part of his political resurgence. By the time of the 1991 gubernatorial election, however, its leadership had withdrawn support from Duke.[67] Despite Duke's status as the only Republican in the runoff, sitting Republican President George H.W. Bush opposed his candidacy and denounced him as charlatan and a racist.[66] White House Chief of Staff John Sununu stated that "The President is absolutely opposed to the kind of racist statements that have come out of David Duke now and in the past."
The Louisiana Coalition against Racism and Nazism rallied against the election of Duke as governor. Beth Rickey, a moderate member of the Louisiana Republican State Central Committee and a PhD student at Tulane University, began to follow Duke to record his speeches and expose what she saw as instances of racist and neo-Nazi remarks. Duke's success garnered national media attention. While Duke gained the backing of the quixotic former Alexandria Mayor John K. Snyder, he won few serious endorsements in Louisiana. Celebrities and organizations donated thousands to Edwards' campaign. Referencing Edwards' long-standing problem with accusations of corruption, popular bumper stickers read: "Vote for the Crook. It's Important",[73][74] and "Vote for the Lizard, not the Wizard." When a reporter asked Edwards what he needed to do to triumph over Duke, Edwards replied with a smile: "Stay alive."
Activist ( talk) 23:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
This seems like a campaign ad, written by Carl DeMaio himself. It does not seem to have neutral perspective. Futurehouse ( talk) 18:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
DeMaio's restroom controversy (see, e.g., http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/politics/Carl-DeMaio-Allegations-Masturbation-Bathroom-City-Hall-Voice-of-OC-221379541.html) is appropriate for inclusion. The accusation was made by credible individuals (fellow city council members), was reported by numerous credible sources, and DeMaio himself thought the accusation important enough to take a polygraph test and make public comments. I see no basis for not including it. MelanieN's claim that the accusation was "poorly sourced" does not appear to be correct, as it was reported by many news agencies and based on public allegations made by multiple city council members. KFM2 ( talk) 20:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Case in point: "Prior to winning his seat on the City Council, DeMaio was best known in San Diego as the City Hall watchdog. He helped uncover the city’s financial and ethical problems. After years of prodding city leaders to enact reforms, a frustrated DeMaio decided to run for City Council. DeMaio’s pledge to the voters was simple: "Clean Up City Hall". His platform included balancing the budget, reforming the pension system, fixing crumbling infrastructure, and restoring ethics and accountability to every level of city government. Refusing to shed his watchdog roots, DeMaio pledged "to continue to serve as the eyes and ears of the taxpayers on the City Council.""
Everything in bold is blatant POV. Bluerondo ( talk) 21:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleting the entire page is a pretty extreme step to take for uncited information. Keep in mind, the information isn't false, it's just not cited. If you delete this page then you'd have to delete 9 out of 10 bio's on Wikipedia.
The guy's an elected city offical, currently not campaigning for anything. Plus give the public some credit. They know what they're getting when they look at wikipedia and see the information's not cited.
In the meantime, check out these articles from Union Tribune and CityBeat. I'm sure the info will be properly cited sooner rather than later.
Newcomer businessman wants a shot at fixing S.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDresident ( talk • contribs) 00:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
So many people use Wikipedia because of its credibility, so I agree with you completely. All the information on this site should be cited. Period. I just think it would be unfortunate to delete the entire page because of citation problems. Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.255.31 ( talk) 06:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Dave Maass: I wrote the CityBeat story pointing out this Wikipedia conflict and so I feel I now have a conflict that prevents me from editing this page. I would like to point out a few recommended edits.
- "DeMaio has arguably been the leading voice for fiscal responsibility and reform on the City Council." This line should be deleted. Right now, the citation links to a 2004 story. DeMaio was elected in 2008, therefore the story cannot possibly support the statement.
- "The article also stated that the Wikipedia pages of councilmembers Tony Young, Todd Gloria, Sherri Lightner and Marti Emerald were all "tainted with editorial," although it did not indicate whether the pages had been self-created or edited." This is irrelevant and has been added for spin, not for the sake of a complete and accurate page.
- Also, in response to the user who stated that DeMaio is not running for anything; he recently took out paperwork to run for Mayor of San Diego.
- Finally, CityBeat thanked the diligent Wikipedia users working on DeMaio's page in this week's issue. http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-8686-on-loughner-and-jacobs.html
—Preceding unsigned comment added by DAVE MAASS) 23:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Here's another recommended edit: - "In 2005, the New York Times dubbed him "San Diego's Taxpayer Watchdog." This is attributed to the New York Times, which did not award him any title of the kind, especially not one that should be capitalized. The actual line is "De Maio, the San Diego watchdog, is lobbying for a federal law that would impose Erisa-type rules on public plans," so the phrasing is also inaccurate. In fact, "San Diego's Taxpayer Watchdog" is the name DeMaio uses to describe himself on his campaign page http://www.votecarldemaio.com/. The use of the New York Times is meant only to justify that title. - Dave Maass —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.70.179.117 ( talk) 15:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Leave it to a Citybeat reporter like Dave Maass to say he has a conflict of interest and then go ahead and give his recommendations for changes anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eno hth ( talk • contribs) 07:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
It is also quite disturbing that it seems that Athene cunicularia is obviously in correspondence with Dave Maass [1] This is highly disturbing for the well being of Wikipedia that a Journeyman Editor and a member of the Guild of Copy Editors is discussing edits with a self professed biased reporter like Dave Maass [1] Hopefully someone higher up will review this problem before Athene cunicularia deletes this remark. Eno hth ( talk) 05:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Um...I said I had a conflict because it was my story cited and, unlike some users, I do not feel it is proper to edit Wikipedia entries that are in direct reference to one's work. If you read the guidelines, the discussion page is where people with these types of conflicts should suggest edits.
Further, I do not see what is so "disturbing" about contacting Wikipedia editors to get their opinion on the issue at stake. You are welcome to contact me as well: davem@sdcitybeat.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maassive ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Maass, You claimed that you have a conflict of interest since you wrote the story on Demaio's page so you can no longer edit the page, yet you gave your recommendations on what should be edited. If you don't understand the irony and inconsistency then I don't know how to help you. Eno hth ( talk) 05:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
References
Today I deleted a claim that was not supported by the references it cited - namely, the claim that DeMaio moved to San Diego "to draw attention to the city's budget and pension problems". The references not only don't support that claim, they state the opposite:
TB: You came to San Diego five years ago. Why San Diego? Did you know it was going to be a great case study in mismanagement?
CD: Actually, no. Southern California is my home, and I feel like a fish out of water when I’m in Washington, D.C. Also, my companies do a lot of conferences and forums for corporate executives, and they don’t want to go to Washington. They like San Diego.
TB: So San Diego’s dysfunctional government was just a bonus.
CD: When we originally conceived of The Performance Institute, we had just completed a state of California project where we uncovered raids on special funds, massive hidden deficits, debt being passed on from year to year, broken programs, a culture of incompetence. So we said let’s focus on something positive next; let’s go to a well-managed city.
Within hours my change was reverted without comment by a WP:Single purpose account named User:Eno hth. I am going to re-revert it and I expect them to come to the discussion page and defend their edit. -- MelanieN ( talk) 06:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
addition is sufficient with the citation provided. Thank you so much for your hard work and diligence on this page..... Eno hth ( talk) 06:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I found this article: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1001/101001p1.htm stating that Carl DeMaio was the director of government redesign at the Reason Public Policy Institute in 2001. The article doesn't say anything about this -- and actually doesn't say what he was doing from 1999-2002. It would be good to look into to fill out this part of his career. XinJeisan ( talk) 16:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Since all good articles should have both criticism and praise if appropriately sourced, DeMaio's article probably should have a general criticism section. This article from 2005: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050518/news_1n18carl.html could be used as a basis for that. Probably could expand the wikipedia controversy section to a more general criticism section. I think I have used up my daily allotment of wiki-editing time so I'll leave it to someone else to do so, if interested. XinJeisan ( talk) 16:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm about to merge the TPI article into Thompson Publishing. here is the info from Carl DeMaio on that page. Most of it is pretty POV but in case anything is here that might be taken out and put into the main article I'll paste it here:
Can't believe I didn't sign the above when I posted it on Feb 20. XinJeisan ( talk) 08:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Today the San Diego Union-Tribune formally credited Carl DeMaio as the person who "led the campaign against" Proposition D, last year's sales tax. When DeMaio's added that claim unsourced into this page I recommended its deletion. Now that a major daily newspaper has made the claim, I think that it would be appropriate to reinsert it, but perhaps with the qualification that he was not the chairman of the No on D committee and that other driving forces for the campaign may disagree.
"Shortly after the voters’ thumping of the sales tax increase proposed in San Diego’s Proposition D last November, this editorial page called for Mayor Jerry Sanders, who had led the campaign in favor of it, and Councilman Carl DeMaio, who led the campaign against it, to work together to achieve the financial reforms that were still badly needed."
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/mar/20/in-search-of-compromise/
I for one don't find the U-T's statement particularly credible since City Councilmember Donna Frye led the Prop D campaign as much as Mayor Sanders did, but that doesn't change the fact that the U-T said it.
Now all that said, I'll also say there is a case to be made that Prop D as a single failed ballot measure may not be historically notable enough for inclusion on this page.
- Maassive ( talk) 15:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Question about: "In the fall of 2010, DeMaio campaigned against a proposal to boost the city's sales tax by a half-a-billion dollars over five years."
The proposal would have increased sales tax by a fraction of a percentage, should the article reflect this instead of the projected revenue? While the projected revenue may turn out to be accurate, it is still not a fact as of this writing. Just my opinion. 2CrudeDudes ( talk) 20:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Why is...
"District 5, with a median household income (as of 2008) of $95,211, is the second most wealthy district of San Diego's eight electoral districts. It includes the neighborhoods of...."
...included in an article about Carl DeMaio (and the second paragraph, no less)? What does this have to do with him? This isn't an article about District 5. I recommend removal. 2CrudeDudes ( talk) 20:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Although it is well known that Twitter is not a WP:RS, primary self published sources can be used if it is by the subject, and the language of the content indicates such. Should the tweet by the subject of the sentence, David Rolland, be included in this article as it is relevant regarding the secondary part of the paragraph?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the "reliable source" tag again. There are at least a few reasons why the blog post qualifies as a reliable source. First, the writer of the blog post, Dave Maass, is a reliable source. Second, San Diego CityBeat, which runs the blog, qualifies as a reliable source. Third, the statement that the source supports ("In the article, DeMaio's spokesman confirmed that his office had created and edited the page") is based on a direct quote by DeMaio's spokesman ("I apologize, I was not aware of Wikipedia’s policy"). Athene cunicularia ( talk) 17:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
it IS supported by WP:RSN.
Could somebody please add his class year? Then he could be added to the "Notable Alumni" on the school's article. Fatidiot1234 ( talk) 18:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering if these should be included on the page.
The San Diego ethics committee fined the SuperPac , Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, for creating the erroneous group called "Conservatives for Gay Rights supporting DeMaio for mayor" the group was set-up by Democratic consultant, Jesus Cardenas , and Democratic organizer, Cynara Velazquez, both of whom work(ed) on Filmer's 2012 campaign and David Alvarez's current mayoral campaign. The most recent fine was imposed as the group photoshopped DeMaio into a group of drag queens and then sent the fake photos to elderly and black communities in an effort to suppress DeMaio's support. The same SuperPac was also fined in 2012 for setting-up robo-calls 6 days before the election and asked "are you voting for Filmer or DeMaio?" if the answer was Filmer the phone call ended, if they said DeMaio, the call then proceeded to ask questions like "if you knew DeMaio was the first openly gay man elected to our San Diego Council, would you still vote for him?"
Read the article: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Oct/11/gay-baiting-carl-demaio-ads-revealed/?#article-copy
When DeMaio was asked why no LGBT groups came to his aid, he said "Despite claims that they insist on tolerance, diversity, and acceptance for all, I suspect they want to keep their alliance with unions so they don't upset their funding source.The democratic groups need to keep the GOP as the bogeyman, because if republicans are no longer a threat, they'll lose all funding."
76.4.109.9 ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.109.9 ( talk) 10:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Is a Wikipedia edit war really notable enough to include on Carl DeMaio's page, let alone merit it its own section? While this may have been interesting enough to draw a couple of local media mentions at the time, I'm not sure that it is notable enough to continue to include it in the article. What do others think? mcd51 ( talk) 03:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I understand this article started as puff piece, with much of the puffery removed by MelanieN et al. In line with keeping the article simple, I think there is some more puffery that needs removing:
The article gives good placement to a claim that DeMaio was a member of the "Citizens Budget Project," but this "project" appears to be nothing more than an astroturf "initiative" of DeMaio's own company, the "Performance Institute" (see http://www.performanceinstitute.org/2008/08/05/san-diego-citizens-budget-plan/), sponsored, directed, and funded in large part by DeMaio himself, and dissolved/reformed at his convenience (see http://ballotpedia.org/San_Diego_Citizens_for_Accountable_Government). I vote to remove the astroturf, or alternatively, to start a new section that lists and clarifies DeMaio's various interlinked businesses/think tanks/front groups. KFM2 ( talk) 21:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I have always been very dubious of his Oliver Twist-like childhood stories - abandoned, taken in by Jesuits, etc. Now reading sources I find that some of the facts provided are contradictory - for example, how old he was when his mother died. This reference says she died when he was 13, whereupon his father abandoned the family. So does this one, adding that the father was abusive. But the article says she died in 1990, when he would have been 15 or 16. This source confirms age 15 and says he was the one who severed ties with his father. The wording used everywhere, "taken in by Jesuits", makes him sound like some abandoned waif, not like a teenager of 15. I'm just not sure what to believe, and (more to the point) how much about his childhood we should include in the article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
DeMaio was born in 1974 in Dubuque, Iowa to a pair of teachers, Carl Joseph DeMaio and Diane M. DeMaio (née Elgin). He spent his early childhood in Orange County, California, where his family moved in the late 1970s. He attended St. Catherine's Military Academy, a Catholic school in Anaheim, through eighth grade; in 1989 he got a scholarship to Georgetown Preparatory School. [1] His mother died in 1990, two weeks after his father abandoned the family. [2] He graduated from Georgetown Prep in 1993, then attended Georgetown University, where he received a degree in International Politics and Business. [3]
Suggestions: 1. Move political intership to 'political career' section. 2. Reword 'landing a job' phrase, which was inserted by DeMaio campaign. 3. Delete "...as a result of his work with the Performance Institute" as unsupported (because, of the two sources linked, CityBeat says nothing about his motivation, and SDMagazine source quotes him as saying a major, perhaps primary motivation, was he wanted to come back home: "Southern California is my home, and I feel like a fish out of water when I’m in Washington, D.C." http://www.sandiegomagazine.com/San-Diego-Magazine/April-2007/Carl-DeMaio/. 4. Restore 'controversial' to "DeMaio is known for his *controversial* advocacy of change in San Diego's budget process," since source repeatedly goes out of its way to note strong reactions (both for and against) to DeMaio and his proposals. Consider expanding into a general paragraph on DeMaio's pre-Council budget stances, including his release of proposals and their reception. The stuff discovered about Citizens Budget Project (now deleted) may be useful. -- KFM2 ( talk) 23:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The section is important and deserves ample space, but I think it has an awful lot of DeMaio campaign/partisanship in it. Suggestions:
(1) First paragraph: "Driving force" bit should be deleted because it is unsourced and disputable (see also note 3). Just say he sponsored or co-sponsored or whatever.
(2) First paragraph: Reword description of prop B to use the Prop's own description of itself ( http://www.sandiego.gov/city-clerk/elections/city/pdf/retirementcharteramendment.pdf), along the lines of "Proposition B proposed (1) limiting of compensation used to calculate city employee pension benefits; (2) eliminating defined-benefit pensions for many new city employees, substituting a defined-contribution (401(k)-style) plan; (3) requiring substantially equal pension contributions from the City and employees; and (4) eliminating the right of employees/retirees to vote to change their benefits."
(3) Second paragraph: That DeMaio authored the text or was "the" (i.e., sole) central figure is unsupported by source and possibly incorrect (from what I can tell, the final prop text was based on compromise language between two competing proposals, one by DeMaio and one by the mayor--see http://ballotpedia.org/San_Diego_Pension_Reform_Initiative,_Proposition_B_(June_2012), but see also http://www.kusi.com/story/14322160/city-leaders-propose-pension-reforms-for-the-june-ballot (saying negotiations broke down)--and supported by all of them. Not sure what to believe. I think delete the whole first sentence, and dedicate that paragraph solely to the ballot signature issue.
(4) Third paragraph: Recommend deletion because it's (a) duplicative of the description in paragraph 1 and (b) wholly unsourced.
(5) For readability, move the fourth paragraph (fiscal impact) up to just after the prop description and just before the ballot signature paragraph. -- KFM2 ( talk) 07:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
San Diego's City Attorney estimated that Proposition B would cost the city $54 million in its first three years of implementation, with overall 30-year inflation-adjusted savings up to $525 million. The savings could be less if the City Council overrode the employee salary freeze with a 2/3 vote from 2012 to 2018. [4] CFredkin ( talk) 22:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
(6) The article contained this line about ballot signatures: "Because the reform required a change to the City of San Diego’s charter, the signatures of 94,000 voters (5% of the city’s electorate) were needed to gain access to the ballot. Ultimately, DeMaio submitted 145,000 signatures," citing to
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/politics/Carl-DeMaio-San-Diego-Pension-Reform-Initiative-130868953.html. There are two problems I see:
(a) 94,000 smelled fishy to me. 94,000 can't possibly be 5% of SD's electorate, because that would imply SD has about 3.7 million people. So I looked at the San Diego election site, and they say the requirement is actually 15%, which sure enough equals 99,019 in 2014. (See http://www.sandiego.gov/city-clerk/elections/process/, click on "Current Signature Requirements.") I think the original source simply made an error and typed 5% when they meant 15%. Unfortunately, I could not find a source that expressly said 15% in 2012, which is what we need. I suppose we could cite to the relevant California Election Code.
(b) The NBCSD source said there were 145,000 signatures, but every other source (including NBCSD at a later date) said 116,000 signatures. See http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Feb/12/sd-pension-ruling-perb/ (116,000); http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Proposition-B-Pension-Reform-Process-Faulted-by-Labor-Agency-Judge-191136161.html (116,000); http://www.ocregister.com/articles/pension-498192-city-reform.html (DeMaio quoted as saying over 50,000); http://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/02/perb-smacks-down-prop-b-pension-reform-initiative-ruling-explained/ ("over 115,000"). My guess is that the 145,000 (if it ever existed) was before fraud detection, and it got reduced to 116k once they deleted duplicates/invalids. Presumably we'd prefer to go with 116k, rather than use 145k and need a caveat about some being deleted as fraudulent, right?
So what do you think? We could just drop in 15% and 116,000, but I don't see any sources expressly saying 15% in 2012 or that the 116,000 were handed in by DeMaio in particular. We do have sources for saying simply "94,000" (no percentage) and "supporters" (not DeMaio particularly) turned in 116,000. Or maybe just scrap the whole sentence? -- KFM2 ( talk) 09:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
References
Several of you have been reverting each other about whether to put "openly gay" in the lead paragraph of the article. The fact that he is gay is already cited in the main body of the text. To find out how we generally do this, I checked the pages of several other LGBT politicians from the San Diego area. I found that in three out of four cases (Todd Gloria, Christine Kehoe and Dave Roberts) that fact is NOT mentioned in the lead paragraph, only in the body of the text. In the fourth case (Toni Atkins) the fact that she is a lesbian was mentioned in the lead only because it was a significant "first" for some of her positions. So I have concluded that it is not Wikipedia practice to put this in the lead unless it has particular relevance to their notability. I deleted it. Also, there is no need for the breathlessly exclamatory item from the National Journal that kept being added to External Links; that's the wrong place for it, and his orientation is already cited to Reliable Sources in the body of the article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
All that being said, if the subject of this article becomes the first openly homosexual Republican congressperson, than that might be relevant to the subject's notability; as that is not presently the case, and the subject's notability isn't tied to their sexual preference, than per MOS, it should be excluded, and be noted in the body of the article (as is presently the case).-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 05:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.
I have reverted a
good faith
per
WP:BURDEN. I have only been able to find a single endorsement prior to the 2012 primary, and had
previously added it as a reliable source to the article. I have yet to find this alleged second SDUT front page endorsement, if others can, please add it and then edit the content. Otherwise the text "before the June 2012 primary and published two front-page endorsements" can not be
verified and thus should not be in the article.
I have seen a verbatim statement "published two front-page endorsements of DeMaio." from the
AP, however that does not give a time frame of it occurring before the June 2012 primary. There is a
claim made by the VoSD, however I have not been able to find it verified directly from the UT, which regularly publishes their printed articles online, and have only been able to find one editorial before the June 2012 primary. Therefore, given that this is a
biography of a living person, and that I cannot find this second endorsement editorial, until it can be found, I say we exclude it until it is found, if it in-fact exist.--
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk)
02:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
It's satisfactory, IMHO.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 04:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
This edit is not supported by the source provided. CFredkin ( talk) 15:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
The statement that Hueso was a political opponent of DeMaio is supported by the following in the U-T San Diego source already provided: "At the time, they were both on the City Council and had sharp disagreements over many issues." Also both sources mention the fact that Hueso is a Democrat. CFredkin ( talk) 23:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Why is it relevant that the subject did not receive an endorsement? This is not about the subject, and thus should not be included, nor should it have been re-added. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 04:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
(From Wikipedia) On 3 September 2014, Taylor dropped out of the race, leaving independent Greg Orman. [16] The New Republic described the withdrawal of Taylor in light of the opinion of Chris Reeves, "a Kansas City Network Consultant who works with Democratic candidates" who said that “The moment Jim Sherow, a Democrat, said he couldn’t endorse him, it was over.”
Activist ( talk) 00:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
(Also from Wikipedia) The Christian Coalition of America, which exerted considerable impact on the Republican State Central Committee, was led in Louisiana by its national director and vice president, Billy McCormack, then the pastor of University Worship Center in Shreveport. The coalition was accused of having failed to investigate Duke in the early part of his political resurgence. By the time of the 1991 gubernatorial election, however, its leadership had withdrawn support from Duke.[67] Despite Duke's status as the only Republican in the runoff, sitting Republican President George H.W. Bush opposed his candidacy and denounced him as charlatan and a racist.[66] White House Chief of Staff John Sununu stated that "The President is absolutely opposed to the kind of racist statements that have come out of David Duke now and in the past."
The Louisiana Coalition against Racism and Nazism rallied against the election of Duke as governor. Beth Rickey, a moderate member of the Louisiana Republican State Central Committee and a PhD student at Tulane University, began to follow Duke to record his speeches and expose what she saw as instances of racist and neo-Nazi remarks. Duke's success garnered national media attention. While Duke gained the backing of the quixotic former Alexandria Mayor John K. Snyder, he won few serious endorsements in Louisiana. Celebrities and organizations donated thousands to Edwards' campaign. Referencing Edwards' long-standing problem with accusations of corruption, popular bumper stickers read: "Vote for the Crook. It's Important",[73][74] and "Vote for the Lizard, not the Wizard." When a reporter asked Edwards what he needed to do to triumph over Duke, Edwards replied with a smile: "Stay alive."
Activist ( talk) 23:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)