Talk:George Pataki

Re-Election?

Could he run for re-election in 2006?Is there any constitutional ban for running for 4th term for him?--Sina 22:46, 11 December 2004 (UTC)

Pataki is eligible to run again in 06, as far as I know. The big thing in NY politics is whether he'll choose to do so. Khanartist 23:56, 15 December 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Pataki can run again -- there are no term limits for Governors in New York. However, to my knowledge, nobody's ever won four terms as governor and the last person who tried, Mario Cuomo, was pretty soundly defeated. It would be risky for Pataki, but he's absolutely eligible to run again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.171.2 (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2005 (UTC)

Rockefeller was the only one who ever has won 4 terms in a row. Tevi 02:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Pataki was eligible for 2006, but has (just today) publicly announced his intention to sit out the 2006 governor's race. By many reports, he's now jockeying position for the 2008 Republican primaries.--Daniel 16:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Death penalty

Any chance on Pataki and the Death Penalty, IIRC that was a major point of his first campaign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.6.241 (talk) 05:07, 3 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that more needs to be added on Pataki and the death penalty. It was indeed a major part of Pataki's first campaign, and it was indeed passed. It was later thrown out by the NYS courts. No execution has ever happened under Pataki, despite what Law & Order would have you think.--Daniel 16:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Pataki and the death penalty is ancient history at this point. The story on the death penalty is really that the courts keep moving the goalposts with the discovery of "flaws" in every law the legislature passes and the governor signs. Loop:

(1) Pass law correcting a flaw in a prior law. (2) Murder. Conviction. Sentencing. (4) Law is tested in the courts. (5) Flaw found. patsw 18:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Pataki and the death penalty is not ancient history (and even if it was, it'd still be Wiki worthy). It was only overturned last year. And on a different note: might I add that the reason Pataki passed the death penalty statute was because a few wealthy donors (e.g., Donald Trump) went on a press blitz buying up ads demanding it after the Central Park jogger rape/attempted murder case and the backlash against the so-called "lenient" punishment the five kids who were arrested/convicted of it received.

Of course, years later, the convictions of the five youths were overturned (only after serving their "lenient" punishment) because it was shown that A) their confessions were coached and coerced from them by the NYPD, B) new examination of the forensic evidence with DNA-identification techniques absolutely cleared them in favor of a serial rapist who'd been arrested later in a separate case, C) that the serial rapist in question himself confessed to the crime, leading to D) the Manhattan District Attorney, Robert Morgenthau himself deciding that the convictions should be thrown out.

So did the courts really move the goalposts and go looking for flaws, or did the flaws in the poster-child case for the death penalty end up finding the courts? --Daniel 01:00, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Plus, the re-enaction of the death penalty in New York could be used in a Pataki presidential campaign as an appeal to social conservatives. He could also take that opportunity to rail against "activist judges", and that would appeal to the conservative base, as well. The death penalty could be a major issue in a Pataki presidential campaign; if a New Yorker could write a comprehensive mini-section on the history of Pataki and the death penalty, it would be quite valuable. --Alfoor 18:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Pataki VS SUNY

is there anything on the amount of money he gutted from the SUNY system? or the tution hikes? or the ciriculum shift in both state universities and public edjucation? towards less perceptually 'liberal' things, like sciences, and math and what not.. and towards a more athletics and religion orriented program, especially in the state universities, who are devoid of research funding now, on both the state and federal level?--172.144.60.219 12:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Pataki Is he not of a Greek ancestry?

Sorry to bother you but I am a Greek knowing that Pataki(s) is 100% a greek surname. How come this fellow hasn't got a greek ancestry?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.202.37 (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Pataki happens to be a common surname in Hungary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.83.206 (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Pataki is of Hungarian, Italian and Irish descent and I have just updated the wikipage to that effect. You people are supposed to sign your comments using four tildes (~) as a sign of accountability. 216.194.20.193 16:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Pataki" is definitely of Eastern-European origin. "Patakis" may be Greek; "Pataki" is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike 7 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In greek 'pataki' would be the female form of 'patakis' and also a form of the male word in certain grammar, also some people immigrating to english speaking countries change their surnames so the last 's' is removed. But generally who cares, this is simply a name that is not greek according to the sources. (I actually came to this page to find out if he had greek ancestry, it appears he doesn't, nothing to see here move along). --fs 03:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

So..?

How do people feel about him bullying the NY State Teacher's Union into not opposing him publicly in the last election?--NY101 16:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Him bullying the teachers?? You must be kidding -- that pack of money-hungry miscreants. How do people feel about the rapacious money-hungry extortionist Randi Weingarten and this bogus lawsuit (CFE) demanding more money apporoved by a Democrat machine judge when New York already spends more per pupil than almost any other state with dubious results. They are going to help drive NYC and New York State into bankruptcy.

216.194.20.193 16:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Not cutting taxes is equal to raising taxes?

The section titled "Liberal republican legacy" includes a quote (see below) that references possible new taxes but is not clear as to which possible these new taxes he is referring to.

Pataki made a controversial budget proposal in which he proposed several tax cuts, despite the state's rising deficits. He also made cuts in education and health care funding which, some say, may close emergency rooms and turn non-profit hospitals into for-profits. Pataki argued that new taxes would drive businesses out-of-state, reducing jobs, further compounding the deficit.

The paragraph mentions his proposal for further cutting taxes, but opposing that is not the same as raising taxes. It ought to be made clearer exactly what new taxes he was opposing. --Cab88 20:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Memorial "taking forever to build"

I'm just passing through here, so I figured I'd point something out that you guys apparently haven't noticed and let you deal with it. :-)

In the September 11th section, it says: Pataki and Giuliani appointed the LMDC to distribute nearly $10 billion in federal grants and to oversee the building of a memorial as well as oversee construction, which are taking forever to build.

I'm sure we can do without the hyperbole, can't we?

Alexwebb2 17:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Confusion with other people?

Can anyone confirm if this person is or has been a stamp collector. I ran into an article called Caveat Emptor! in Stamp Show News for February 1978; it is a reprint from Romanian Philatelic Studies, No. 1-1978. The article deals with unethical practices among stamp dealers whom the author found to be selling forged Romanian stamps. One of those stamp dealers had his business in New York. The by-line for the article shows "George Pataki". Is this the same George Pataki? Eclecticology 08:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

On that same note, Pataki is listed as "Amateur Radio People." Pataki is being confused with another George Pataki who had often wrote articles for QST Magazine. This needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.45 (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct that the citation to George Pataki's ham call sign is to a different George Pataki, originally from Romania.

The governor was also a ham in the late 1960's and let his license lapse. But he WAS a ham, K2ZCZ. To verify this, you could check the Callbooks in the late 60's, and early 70's to verify which specific years he had his license. His brother Louis was also a ham (for longer than George).

As to the stamp collector - I have no idea if the non-ham George Pataki in the citation was a stamp collector or seller, just that both had a connection with Romania. 108.211.226.114 (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Physical dimensions

I just saw a picture of this guy, and he seems to be pretty tall, possibly one of the tallest current-serving governors. Does anyone have his height? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrot22 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

His term ends at on New Years' Eve

11:59:59 PM on Dec. 31st I thought that I would add that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericl (talk • contribs) 17:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait a sec, on the List of Governors of New York, the Governors terms are ending on even numbered years (eg. Mario Cuomo 1983-94). Yet on all the seperate biographies of New York Governors, the terms end on odd numbered years (eg. Mario Cuomo 1983-95). The New York Governor related articles, should have the same dates, should they? GoodDay 21:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please Elaborate

WHEN did Pataki decide NOT to seek re-election?
WHO is his wife?

Libby

HOW many children does he have?

By Libby or others?

WHAT schools did he attend? HOW does he rank against other Republican Presidentian nominees?

Doesn't.

I await these updates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.193.160 (talk) 0708, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned replies added by 24.195.212.212 (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Indents added by Ken Gallager (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Governors of New York

The category box is in error, Spitzer shouldn't be listed. If he's to be listed, it should be 'Spitzer (elect)'. GoodDay 18:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Now moot. --gohlkus 23:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of Post columnist:"Good Riddance"

It doesn't seem like there's any reason this column should be included in this article, much less given its own section. Furthermore, there are plenty of positive opinions about Pataki's tenure in office. Including only this one column obscures this fact.--Cg-realms 06:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to provide a balance of opinions here. I posted the Dicker piece because he writes for the major conservative paper in the state (the Post) as well as being a leading commentator on Albany TV. He's a serious voice on state government and one who would have been expected to have been less caustic given his background — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.52.14 (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

George Pataki's term (on this article), is listed as ending January 1st, 2007. Yet on the List of Governors of New York article, his term ends December 31st, 2006. The New Year date, is shown in most NY Governors bio articles. Which is it? GoodDay 23:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected the date, which Pataki left office. It's December 31st, 2006 NOT January 1st, 2007. Made similar correction in all Governors & Lt.Governors of New York tenures (from 1817-2006) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoodDay (talk • contribs) 21:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

yale political union / party of the right / conservative party

I have removed the following text from the article: (just the bolded bit)

While there he served as chairman of the Conservative Party of the Yale Political Union, and, after completing that service, joined the Party of the Right of the same organization.

I am a current member of the Yale Political Union, and as such I know that this cannot but be unsourced. Moreover, though, I cannot but think that it is not particularly relevant to Pataki's life, as interesting as it may be to historians of the YPU and PoR. Pataki's membership in the Union is surely noteworthy--he is one of the more prominent members the Union has had in its 75-year history, along with J. Harvie Wilkinson, John Kerry, and Fareed Zakaria--but I can't imagine his change in party membership is, especially with it being unsourced. Lastly, because such a membership could create controversy, given its unproven status I am reluctant to let it stand. I probably know more YPU history than anyone in the Union at this point, but whether or not this is true is beyond even me. I am tempted to think that it is just PoR lore.

However, if any source can be unearthed for this information, I'd be willing to consider its inclusion.

Best,

-Paul

Vivisel 20:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Airplane usage

You state:

Airplane usage

During his tenure, he used the planes more than Cuomo.

You do not supply a citation to any sort of state public record showing how many times Pataki and Cuomo used the planes. Please add a citation so that this fact can be reinstated. Sonnickboom 22:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

World Trade Center legacy

This section is oddly written: full of irrelevant minutiae on the World Trade Center, full of POV animus against Pataki, and frankly, tedious reading.

The "legacy" of the World Trade Center in Pataki's bio is simple: he couldn't pull the different groups with a stake in remembering and rebuilding the World Trade Center in a timely manner, leaving a mess for others to contend with. His political skills were not up to the task.

The section needs a rewrite. So what do readers and editors think? patsw 03:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote and greatly condensed this section, it is no longer as strident or tedious. - RW, 27 July 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.122.207 (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I blame him for the Freedom Tower and the current plans for the World Trade Center rebuilding. He went against the wishes of the people of the city by pushing for the Freedom Tower. I prefer the Twin Towers to be rebuilt. I have no respect for this man whatsoever. He will be remembered for the cronyism he pulled off to get the Freedom Tower to be built. - Senjuto, 2:07 NY time, Sept 12, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.11.32 (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Today is eleven years after the terrorist/Jihad attack, and watching FoxNews, I wrote down, “They will be remembered in a museum to be constructed here at Ground Zero” – Former governor of New York, Republican George Pataki — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Governorship Tenure

According to List of Governors of New York, Pataki's term ended at midnight December 31, 2006. Which is it. Dec 31/06 or Jan 1/07. GoodDay 23:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey wait a sec, the forementioned List was changed to match these bios. GoodDay 23:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Have no fear I've fixed the page & the List page. GoodDay 18:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Revere America, No American Debt

These organizations appear to be defunct. I think that the article should reflect that. 76.120.184.122 (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC) 76.120.184.122

Lack of Info in Governorship Section

Without lending support or critique to his policies, there is a great deal of information that could be shared about Pataki's terms in office. However, this page currently offers only a single paragraph worth of information. It seems very strange that a three term governor's tenure in office is summed up in a single paragraph. It's also very suspicious that said single paragraph only serves to point out criticisms of his fiscal policies while in office, a tone that is echoed in the subsequent Legacy section.

The page should reflect the actions taken and policies enacted by the Pataki administration while he served as governor.

Timatim (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The governorship section was split out back in 2010 but that never should have been done - neither the main article or it was very long. I decided to be bold and so I've merged the two back together here and now the governorship section at least has something in it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Question

Why is there a need to have a citation for the pronunciation of his last name? Seems a little over zealous and unnecessary. (71.74.12.217 (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC))

RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph

Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraphAnythingyouwant (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Wondering about his role in tech center at SUNY Albany

I wasn't a resident of NYS when he was governor (although at one time in the past I did go to school there) but I'm led to believe that this was the governor who directed the bulk of the massive spending (take a look at just the length of this site's article on the subject) that basically created the Colleges of Nanoscale Science and Engineering at SUNY Albany. I've wondered for awhile whether this was something of a quid-pro-quo to attract GlobalFoundries to build a fab there (the premise being this would establish a local facility where they could locally and inexpensively get their workers trained) and I'm wondering whether the NYS taxpayers feel this was an appropriate expenditure of all that loot, especially because as an experiment to attract other semi outfits and make NYS a tech world leader it was obviously a massive failure. It would seem that such an issue would at least deserve a mention if not a full-throated discussion in the article about his leadership of the state but here I can't even find a mention of his participation, it seems like such a dramatic "oversight", I recall the extensive discussion about other tech awards to other NYS schools in previous eras that something seems to be quite "out of whack" here, I'd like to hear what other folks know about the topic, or point out if I've got this all wrong somehow. Jlawton11 (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Rendering subject's name

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL.

Established professional journalistic practice, per style manuals of the AP, NYT, ad infinitum, is to render a subject's name in that indivual prefers such as often in her/his signature, etc. Thus it is WP's practice to render this in the header to the infobox when it conflicts with the shortened form the subject is generally known to the public by (as in wp:Common name); eg see Template:Infobox person: " If middle initials are specified (or implied) by the lead of the article, and are not specified separately in the birth_name field, include them here." Cf. infobox header "Hillary Rodham Clinton" at WP article Hillary Clinton, etc.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources for infobox religion?

I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.

Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

• Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.

• Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?

• Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.

• Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

The forty candidates are:

Extended content

Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016 Name: Farley Anderson: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: Jeb Bush: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism Religion name mentioned in Body? Yes, but all links cited are dead. Discuss on article talk page. Name: Ben Carson: Infobox Religion: Seventh-day Adventist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do. Name: Darrell Castle: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Lincoln Chafee: Infobox Religion: Episcopalian. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Darryl Cherney: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Chris Christie: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Catholic.[1] Discuss on article talk page. Name: Hillary Clinton: Infobox Religion: Methodist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Methodist.[2] Discuss on article talk page. Name: Ted Cruz: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Southern Baptist.[3] Discuss on article talk page. Name: Sedinam Curry: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: Carly Fiorina: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Jim Gilmore: Infobox Religion: Methodism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Lindsey Graham: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation fails direct speech requiement.[4] Discuss on article talk page. Name: James Hedges: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Tom Hoefling: No Infobox, nothing to do. Name: Mike Huckabee: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do. Name: Bobby Jindal: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "Evangelical Catholic."[5] Name: Gary Johnson: Infobox Religion: Lutheranism. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation is a dead link. Discuss on article talk page. Name: John Kasich: Infobox Religion: Anglicanism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Christian[6] but citation doesn't have him specifying anglicism in direct speech. Discuss on article talk page. Name: Chris Keniston: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: William Kreml: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: Gloria La Riva: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Lawrence Lessig: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: John McAfee: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Kent Mesplay: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Martin O'Malley: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, comes really close to self-identifying[7] but I would be more comforable if we could find a citation with unambigious direct speech. Discuss on article talk page. Name: George Pataki: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Rand Paul: Infobox Religion: Presbyterianism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Rick Perry: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home"[8] and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page. Name: Austin Petersen: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do. Name: Marco Rubio: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch."[9] and assigned him as being Roman Catholic based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page. Name: Bernie Sanders: Infobox Religion: Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13. Name: Rick Santorum: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body. Many citations about him being catholic, but I couldn't find a place where he self-identifioes using direct speech. Religion name mentioned in body, Name: Rod Silva (businessman) No Infobox, nothing to do. Name: Mimi Soltysik Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do. Name: Jill Stein Infobox Religion: Reform Judaism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Name: Donald Trump Infobox Religion:Presbyterian. Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#Donald Trump Religion Name: Scott Walker Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "born-again Christian".[10] Discuss on article talk page. Name: Jim Webb Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Note: Citation in infobox fails self-identification requirement.

My goal is to determine whether Wikipedia's requirements are met for the above forty pages, and to insure that we have citations to reliable sources that meet the requirements.

You are encouraged to look at and comment on the other pages, not just this one.

Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing religion from infobox

Previously, I asked for citations showing that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements for listing religion in the infobox and in the list of categories. I also did my own search. There do not appear to be sources establishing compliance with the rules for inclusion, so I have removed the religion entry and categories. It appears that this page does not meet Wikipedia's requirements, so I am removing religion from the infobox and categories. Editors are encouraged to add properly sourced religion information to the body of the article, subject to WP:V and WP:WEIGHT.

As a reminder Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox and categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

Extended content

Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability. Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". In the context of politicians and political candidates, there is a strong consensus in discussion after discussion that The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious? Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is. Per WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having -- such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. (Emphasis is in original) Per WP:DEFINING: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right [...] a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun..." or "Subject, an adjective noun,...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. [...] Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic. Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

Note: this page has not been singled out. I asked for citations on all forty candidates (some now withdrawn) for the 2016 US presidential election. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with George Pataki 2016 presidential campaign

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merged into George Pataki as proposed. Surachit (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

---

There are only a few paragraphs of information in the campaign article that aren't in the main article. pbp 17:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support The campaign obviously went nowhere and it can certainly be covered in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 19:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Support No reason for a separate article on that topic. SunCrow (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Links to for-profit nursing homes

My students and I are reading about links between Pataki and for-profit nursing homes. In the literature, it's been documented that nursing home and board-and-care home executives have been major contributors to Pataki's campaigns. Ought'nt that be mentioned in an overview of his career? 100.15.131.130 (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)