Talk:Corey Johnson (politician)

This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. LGBT studies B‑class

Hi there, I'm new here. I think adding a subsection on religious freedom to this page would be an improvement. Religious freedom is an important topic to many readers with historic and cultural significance, and Johnson is a public figure in a position of political power whose recent actions implicate that issue. However, a new section with the heading Religious Freedom has been added and then edited multiple times to Discrimination in Healthcare, and all references to religion deleted from the section. The page already contained sections labelled Health and LGBT Rights, so I see no need for a new section on discrimination in healthcare. Also there are no sources listed that show discrimination against any healthcare patients occurred, or that Johnson said it occurred. Below is the proposed section. I understand the issues raised are controversial, but I think they can be covered with NPOV and appropriate care to BLP. Would appreciate comments. As I said, I'm new here. Willing to learn, but getting a little frustrated. Thanks in advance!

Religious Freedom

On May 1, 2020 Speaker Johnson publicly called on the New York City Council to not "continue allowing"^[1][2][3] international Christian relief organization Samaritan's Purse to remain in New York City after the group set up a field hospital in Central Park in collaboration with Mount Sinai Health System to care for patients sick with COVID-19 in late March 2020.^[4][5][6] The same day the Speaker publicly ordered Mount Sinai Health System to sever its relationship with Samaritan's Purse,^[7] citing the group's expressions of religious belief regarding homosexuality^[8] and religious practices in connection with the screening of its volunteers.^[9] The following day Mount Sinai confirmed that the Samaritan's Purse field hospital would stop admitting patients on May 4, 2020.^[10]

Broom Bones (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Opposed. Per
  Samaritan’s Purse organization. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thanks Gleeanon409. Any thoughts on the topic of this subsection, i.e., whether adding a section on religious freedom would improve the article about Johnson? Any sources for your section heading Discrimination in Healthcare? Any sources for Johnson calling on the Council not to allow Samaritan's Purse to remain in Central Park? That is not what your quote says. It says "here." And, unless Johnson was in Central Park when he typed it, considering it was a press release issued by the New York City Council, that would seem to mean New York City. Broom Bones (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you focus on what WP: Reliable sources are reporting, Samaritan’s Purse (SP) offered the hospital set-up which alarmed many because of their poor track record, especially their institutionalized homophobic attitudes. NYC felt they had to accept any help offered so went ahead with reassurances SP would not push religious dogma, and wouldn’t discriminate. They did both and were asked to leave, and Mount Sinai severed ties as well.

      Ergo there is no real cases to be made that Religious Freedom was denied SP, or that SP didn’t have the opportunity to provide non-judgmental competent care. They blew it and were kicked out. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable sources may be reporting that SP's set-up alarmed many, but the article does not cite those and I don't see the relevance to Johnson. Ditto SP's supposed institutionalized homophobic attitudes, how NYC "felt," etc. Also, sources for discrimination in healthcare? And for Johnson demanding SP leave Central Park, as opposed to New York City? Broom Bones (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• For any other editors who may be interested, a section on Religious Freedom was added, Gleeanon409 changed that section heading to Discrimination in Healthcare and deleted references to religion. Those changes were reverted, then Gleeanon409 deleted the reversion and inserted the previous version, but did not label that a reversion. That seems like an attempt to avoid the three-reversion rule. This seems to be heading for an edit war, so I'm hoping to attract other editors to the discussion. I'm new here. I've not been at all welcomed. I can see that my proposed section has issues, and I'd like to hear what others have to say about how it can be improved, and whether it would be an improvement to the article on Johnson. The edits I've made have been in good faith. But they have been repeatedly distorted to champion a progressive POV. Broom Bones (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed terrible sources, and aligned the text with what reliable sources state in a NPOV manner. It’s what we’re supposed to do on a BLP. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I added text and sources to clarify that the ouster of SP was controversial, and moved some cites to clarify what they refer to. I still think a subsection titled Religious Freedom would improve this article, and the current section heading is redundant, non-neutral POV, not born out by the current cites, and gives undue weight to a current event in a BLP. But, as there is an ongoing dispute, I left the heading as is. A possible compromise would be to delete the heading and move the text under the heading LGBT rights. Broom Bones (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps well-intended, most of that wasn’t helping and was more POV problems. You have to slow your roll here and recognize this is not Graham’s story, or SP’s article, it’s all about Johnson. On other articles the focus will be on those subjects. The core issue remains not that SP was denied freedom of religion, but that they were discriminating against LGBTQ people during a pandemic which is despicable, they were caught and asked to leave. Rewriting history won’t change that. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm...
      New York Times, discuss the controversy and were cited in my previous version, which was reverted with the comment "poor sourcing." Gleeanon409's view of the supposed "core issue" is not relevant. Johnson's action was controversial, and the controversy should be presented, with regard to verifiability and due weight on a BLP, in order for the section to be NPOV. It seems Gleeanon409 and I are at a standstill, though I welcome further discussion. I am quite new to Wikipedia, and I appreciate any constructive advice, but the back and forth and multiple reversions are getting tiresome. Broom Bones (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Your understanding of the controversy is mistaken at best. SP is a controversial organization whose involvement was protested and opposed because they discriminate against LGBTQ people. Numerous reliable sources uphold those ideas:

• Kelleher, Patrick (May 4, 2020). "Franklin Graham dismisses coronavirus as a ploy to smear Trump after being told he can't use it to push his cruel homophobia". PinkNews. Retrieved May 7, 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) • "Controversial Central Park field hospital closing". WPIX. 2020-05-03. Retrieved 2020-05-08. • "Controversial Central Park Field Hospital to Close; Samaritan's Purse Staffers Will Stay at Mount Sinai". NBC New York. Retrieved 2020-05-08. • "LGBTQ activists criticize partnership between NYC hospital and controversial religious group". FOX 5 NY. 2020-05-03. Retrieved 2020-05-08. • Reid-Smith, Tris (2020-05-05). "New York kicks out Franklin Graham's tent hospital he used to promote anti-LGBT+ agenda". Gay Star News. Retrieved 2020-05-08. • "Controversial Central Park Field Hospital to Close; Samaritan's Purse Staffers Will Stay at Mount Sinai". NBC New York. Retrieved 2020-05-08. • "» Anti-LGBTQ organization's New York field hospital for COVID-19 patients to close". Retrieved 2020-05-08. • "Samaritan's Purse Central Park field hospital to close as virus cases drop in NYC". Religion News Service. 2020-05-04. Retrieved 2020-05-08. • "Franklin's Graham's field hospital is to pack up its tents and go". Patheos. 2020-05-04. Retrieved 2020-05-08.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

• I’m afraid you haven’t swayed me that what we have in the article is less than accurate. There may be a better title but ‘Religious Freedom’ has nothing to do with why SP was kicked out. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the current article version and the text from above, I am at a complete loss as to how "Religious freedom" is in any way warranted as a section heading. Nobody has denied anyone the right to practice their religion - or, if they have, that's not been mentioned anywhere in the article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun:, to clarify, we know it’s not currently in the article but based on reliable sources above or elsewhere, do you think we need to include anything about ‘religious freedom’, or that we’re missing anything else in particular? Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not. I don't see how "religious freedom" is an issue here. An organisation set up a field hospital. They apparently discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, so were asked to remove themselves. They did so. No "religious freedoms" were inhibited, the organisation still operates elsewhere. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The suggested material is entirely
  talk) 17:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I’ve research and introduced a new section that focuses on Johnson in reliable sourcing. I think NPOV requires us to cover the subject in some capacity. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I significantly reduced what you wrote. Most of it was not relevant to Johnson, and the quote by him is not needed. I don't think this subject is particularly relevant to Johnson's life anyway though. Is this something people are going to care about in 20 years about him? We should remember Wikipedia is
    talk) 05:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • You appear to have fully removed it. I've restored it. There is an ongoing discussion about the controversy right here, so please, let's discuss, per
      WP:BRD. Is this something people are going to care about in 20 years about him? I think if there's a biography written about him in 20 years, then yes, his actions during the biggest pandemic to strike the U.S. this century will warrant a chapter. Moreso than, say, mandating the presence of defibrillators at ball parks. I do feel the section title ("Confronting religious bigotry") is not neutral to the same degree that "Religious Freedom" wasn't, and have modified accordingly. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • The material was not removed; it was shortened and moved to a different section. Per
        talk) 08:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • The material was drastically shortened, and included removal of sourced material. There is consensus for inclusion - see discussion above - the question being discussed is on emphasis. At least three editors have taken part in that discussion and want the material included. No problem at all with more eyes on the article. Please do note, you have reverted three times and are in danger of breaching 3RR, hence the warning on your talk page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can't be the only one confused by multiple simultaneous proposals all being discussed at the same time, with alternatives being added in to others' proposals. So - can we pause, review, and discuss? From comments in all the above proposals, it seems to me that a) everyone accepts that the controversy should be covered; and that b) the only real dispute, then, is the extent of coverage? Sound reasonable so far? So - somewhere between Gleeanon409's approximately four lines and Broom Bones's approximately 1.5 lines. A compromise length would be approximately 2.5 lines. Gleeanon409 - what would you be willing to lose from your version? Broom Bones - what additional content would be acceptable to you?

Is a compromise worth pursuing? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note both me and Isaidnoway do not support the issue being included in the article at all, as we both said that it is not DUE and not significant enough for inclusion in a biography. I also do not think starting a new top-level section here is helpful. –

talk) 20:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Ruh roh! Someone’s being a wet blanket again!

We already have consensus that something should be added to the article and discussion will benefit that effort. Your position has been made.

Bastun, I’ll rework mine again to see how it can be trimmed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"We already have consensus that something should be added to the article". That is not accurate, and if the RfC has reached a consensus, then an uninvolved editor or administrator should be making that call. –

talk) 21:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Wallyfromdilbert, there is consensus for inclusion, I believe, with only one editor - Isaidnoway - totally opposing inclusion. Your contribution above from 06:28 this morning led me to believe that although you weren't in favour of the topic being included, you at least wouldn't oppose the shorter version. Would you stretch to an additional line. As to opening the new section - there are currently two RFCs, each with an additional proposal. That's... not workable, and neither of them has a clear consensus. Hence my attempt at a compromise. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I said I oppose the content as not being due, but I would not oppose a short mention "if other editors think it worth mentioning". I, however, still do not think it is worth mentioning. I am also aware of only one official RfC being opened above, but it should be noted that this talk page has become "unworkable" as the result of Gleeanon409 repeatedly creating new sections when discussions are not going their way. I think it would be better if you addressed those concerns with that editor rather than adding to it. I have see no one but you and Gleeanon409 support some long version of this content (including an editor on BLPN who was opposed to it), and so creating another section to try to argue for its inclusion seems counterproductive at best. –

talk) 21:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Wallyfromdilbert

Agreed, we don't need any more sections, or new proposals. We need to discuss the proposals on the table, and work collaboratively toward a compromise.

Can I ask as a general question, how do we know when we've arrived at general consensus minus one holdout versus an ongoing good faith disagreement? Could anyone point me to a policy or essay on that? Thanks! Broom Bones (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bastun, thanks for your comments. Agreed, the multiple simultaneous proposals are confusing. I'm not opposed to 2.5 lines, but I don't think extent of coverage is the real dispute.

The content I propose centers on the controversy Johnson's comments sparked, which was widely covered in the news. Some of the titles from

WP:BALANCE

it seems best to include both criticism and praise, which my proposal does.)

The content Gleeanon409 proposes seems to focus on Samaritan's Purse (SP), general criticism of SP, and Mount Sinai ending its relationship with SP, rather than on Johnson. It also omits even a mention of the very broad criticism Johnson's remarks drew, though roughly half of the articles in Gleeanon409's source survey were critical of Johnson's remarks, and almost all of them report the criticism.

I also think the tone of

WP:NPOV because it appears to be included in defense of Johnson's comments. Broom Bones (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

(after edit conflict - this is a reply to Wallyfromdilbert): Other editors think it is worth mentioning. I am addressing the issue by asking involved editors to compromise. Again - this is about compromise. On BLP/N, Zaereth proposed working collaboratively, which is what I'm trying to do here. They also suggested that we "settle for a few lines." That's what I'm proposing. Up from Broom Bones' 1.5 lines, down from Gleeanon's 4 lines. And Gleeanon409 does seems to be willing to shorten their proposed version. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK - so, essentially, the content can be somewhat longer than your proposal, somewhat shorter than Gleeanon's, if what's included is more neutral in content and tone? That's something we can work with, then. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Bastun. Yup, that makes sense to me. And to answer your question from earlier, I think it would be acceptable to add the quote from Johnson (without interstitial citations), but not the intro sentence about COVID-19, others' criticism/protests of SP, statement about the medical crisis abating or Mount Sinai ending ties to SP. These belong on the articles about COVID-19, SP, Governor Cuomo, Senator Hoylman and Mount Sinai if they belong on WP at all. Broom Bones (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kk. It's late here, I'll propose a wording tomorrow, along those lines, if someone doesn't beat me to it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose this as well. The RfC was started just a few days ago, and it's already been decided that there's consensus for inclusion, so let's just go ahead and compromise and include it? If this content dispute could have been resolved by normal discussion and compromise, then stop opening up pointless RfC's and wasting uninvolved editor's time by asking for outside opinions. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It’s not been perfectly handled but we are discussing so it’s a reasonable path. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

compromise text A

In March 2020 NYC became the main U.S. epicenter of the