Talk:David Dinkins

Untitled

Okay, there seems to be an 'edit war' going on here, and it's silly.

Question: is the current photo (color image) in the Public Domain? It was not listed as such when I checked.

Quill 21:40, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

File:Frmr_NYC_Mayor_David_Dinkins_with_plaque.jpg Since there seems to be a question over the current pic, I uploaded this PD pic to commons--might want to use it, especially if someone can remove the flag growing out of his head (and arse). Niteowlneils 03:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you wanna help, try to rewrite his biography from [1]. It's very interesting, so I think someone who know better english than I should rewrite it. Darwinek 18:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, 'rewriting' other people's work is unethical and I won't do it. Quill 07:56, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Place of Birth

A web search reveals several sites claiming his place of birth to be Trenton, New Jersey. I'm going to take a chance and add that, as no place of birth is currently mentioned. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 11:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

'influential clique'?

The second paragraph describes him as being part of an influential clique of african-americans. Especially considering the Wikipedia definition of clique, that description seems POV to me.--Anchoress 23:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

After browsing this page, I find it hard-pressed to find anything outright positive Dinkins did. The 'Mayoralty' section has precious few details aside from events that Dinkins seemingly had little blame in causing. As well, I deleted a particularly racist statement about him supposedly getting a free pass for being black. Puh-leeze. =//Turnquest 07:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Just added an NOPV tag. Seems overly negative all the way through, and plenty of unverified claims. Hopefully, someone who knows a bit more about the man will spot that and clean it up a little. Paj.meister 19:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Big Picture

I don't have the source, but I remember reading a story in Newsweek or Time about the Big Reduction in Crime during Guliani's time as mayor. The article said the new effective policing tactics implemented by Bratton would have been impossible without the extra police Mayor Dinkins hired during his term. In other words, the big decrease in crime in NYC had two components:

   More Police - implemented by Dinkins
   Better Policing - implemented by Guliani and Bratton

The current article here completely ignores this important piece of information. And paints an overly simplistic picture (Dinkins Bad / Guliani Good) of the transition of NYC from a high crime city to a low crime city.

If Dinkins had not increased the police department, it is doubtful that Guiliani / Bratton could have been as successful. (Republicans rarely raise taxes for anything - even public safety). I know this because here in L.A. today, Bratton is all but begging the city government to hire more police. But our Democratic controled government is too afraid to raise taxes to do it. (The conversavites are "lurking" just off stage in case they do!) California / L.A. is not as blue as portrayed in the media. Neither is NYC.

"Men's Room Attendant" Slur and Racial Tensions

Many in New York City referred to him as the "Men's Room Attendant" -a blatantly racist appelation. Shouldn't this be included? 71.249.13.251 20:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

He was referred to as a "washroom attendant" to be exact, primarily by Bob Grant and others like Rudy Guiliani (it has been rumored). Why is this racist? You've never seen white washroom attendants?? It was really a question of his background and what he has done to deserve to be Mayor of one of the largest cities in the world. Dinkins was a "nobody" in terms of politics and his brief stint as mayor reaffirmed this view. --24.189.35.249 (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the only peson who ever publically referred to Mayor Dinkins as a "Men's Room Attendant" was WABC radio talk show host Bob Grant. 24.168.116.248 05:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Giuliani *encouraged* the racial tensions that intensified in New York during that time. The slur referred to above was made at a rally by police officers Giuliani spearheaded. See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18108850/site/newsweek/ . Many New Yorkers, especially black and Latino New Yorkers but also whites and Asians believe Giuliani got into office by encouraging racial division in the city. This could be why New Yorkers continue to have such a low opinion of him: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/05/14/2007-05-14_bloomy_tops_rudy_in_battle_of_the_titans-2.html

Giuliani referenced Dinkins frequently and seemed to compare accomplishments, (possibly due to questions about Giuliani taking credit for crime reduction that began under Dinkins). Giuliani would not refer to Dinkins by name on these occasions however, referring to him as "my predecessor".

Dinkins also was criticized for attempting to heal racial tensions in New York City during the Flatbush boycott of Korean green-grocer Red Apple, despite pressure from some political activists in the African American community: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F3061FF73F5D0C718DDDAC0894D8494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fF%2fFood

Death?

As of 11:13 pm ET on March 16, this article states that Dinkins died on March 7. I can't confirm that he is alive, but there has been no news coverage whatsoever of his "death" - and the links used as references for his "death" lead to blank pages on the websites of WABC and WNBC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.89.184 (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's vandalism and it's been reverted. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

He's not dead!

He was at David Paterson's swearing in! I'm changing it now - that's really horrible whoever did this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.81.105 (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Amazing how negative and anti-Dinkins this article remains. Perhaps if no-one can find citations or neutral phrasing Instead of listing a litany of bad things, the facts should be presented, plus opinion or commentary on them if necessary by cited sources. Otherwise the only way to preserve NPOV will be to remove the listing of negatives. Slac speak up! 01:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Eliminating all negative comment is just as detrimental to NPOV, and it's ludicrous to suggest that removing negatives will solve the issue. Much of what is listed is true of Dinkins -- perhaps editors should look to balance the negatives with some positives of his contributions to NYC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.166.254.3 (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion was to remove negatives only they couldn't be cited and phrased in a neutral manner. This is well with Wikipedia's guidelines. By stating that 'much' is true, you imply some things in the article are false, which should be removed. Also, if much is true, than it should be no problem finding the requested cites. 24.187.214.210 (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm killing anything in the Mayoralty section that is without citation. there is a tremendous amount of baloney there, including an unattributable quote. Vinithehat (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Bob Grant

A bit about Bob Grant saying something not nice about Dinkins has been inserted three times and removed as inappropriate. Grant is known for saying not nice things about all kinds of people; this is not a controversy, and it isn't even worthy of note. That's what Grant does, and he does it to well-known people and even bills himself as "the inventor of controversial talk radio". This article is not a place to collect a listing of things people who don't (or didn't) like Dinkins said about him. In addition, this is something like 20 years ago; if it really was a controversy, there should be cites to support that. Saying that Grant said something does not a controversy make.  Frank  |  talk  17:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Today's edits

I reverted some of today's edits because of WP:V and WP:NOR concerns, and because some of them just didn't make sense.

• According to our source (Ebony magazine), Dinkins was raised by his mother and grandmother. If somebody wants to say he was raise by his father, bring a reliable source that says so. Likewise, our source doesn't say anything about where Dinkins was when WWII ended.
• The section about Dinkins' election was changed into a "some say, others say" format. That interchange raises concerns about original research. To avoid that problem, we usually summarize what one source says, then we summarize what another source says, and we attribute both opinions to their authors. Another problem is that both "sides" seem to say the same thing. Finally, the new material was sourced to a search result from Google Books. Please cite the specific page of New York magazine, so other readers can find the source you used.

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I reverted today's edit because the Ebony article being used as source is wrong. It misstated the facts of his upbringing (see obituary of Dinkins's father in New York Times which states the facts correctly) and it misstates the facts of his education. Dinkins's professional biography at WLIB, where he works, states specifically that he graduated with honors. If he had graduated magna cum laude, a higher honor, it would increase his stature and have been stated there. — PK800  11:06, 13 March 2011

Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth (or facts). Please see WP:V. We don't write articles based on "if a, then b". We write articles based on what is actually published in reliable sources. We cannot accurately say that "magna cum laude" would "increase his stature"; besides, the man is 83 years old and perhaps doesn't need stature. Perhaps instead he is displaying some humility by downplaying the exact honor from 50+ years ago. The point is - we don't assume anything.  Frank  |  talk  13:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Third-party sources

Dinkins's memoirs is cited 10 times. That's excessive, especially when it's being used to cite facts about the crime rate during Dinkins's mayoralty. Independent third-party sources are necessary. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The Dinkins memoir is cited as reference for his graduating cum laude from Howard University (a source of previous debate in Wikipedia), his parents' professions, his political mentoring by J. Raymond Jones, the physical scope of his first mayoral campaign, his reaction to the Lemrick Nelson verdict, and the economic effect of the U.S. Open Tennis Championships on New York City -- all significant pieces of hitherto buried information, the point of a memoir, and not at all excessive. The statement "Under the Dinkins administration, crime in New York City decreased more dramatically and more rapidly than at any time in modern New York City history" was made by Len Riggio, CEO of Barnes & Noble, on page xi of the foreword to Dinkins' memoir and is backed up by a chart from the New York Post. It is verifiable and should be reinstated. The Dinkins listing includes 31 individual and verifiable references from sources other than the Dinkins memoir itself. There is no promotional commercial link. The third party notification is not justified and should be removed. The Confederate flag on the Talk site of the person who has made provocative statements regarding edits is noted.Pk800 (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

As always, independent, third-party sources are best. WP:SOURCE says "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

Also, I don't think the chart from the New York Post says what you think it does. It shows that crime was high in 1990, it was higher in 1991, and it began falling in 1992. I think the Post's editors would choke on their tongues before they would say that "Under the Dinkins administration, crime in New York City decreased more dramatically and more rapidly than at any time in modern New York City history." Their point was exactly the opposite. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The point is not what the "Post"'s editors would do with their tongues, it is the steady and historic decrease of crime under Dinkins, beginning in 1991, which the chart specifically details. Crime was not higher in 1992 than in 1991, as you state. Dinkins took office on January 1, 1990, and crime was high in 1990 as a result of trends begun under Dinkins' predecessors. His policies were put into practice in 1990, and according to FBI and NYPD statistics, which are also footnoted in the listing - Langan, Patrick A.; Matthew R. Durose (December 2003). "The Remarkable Drop in Crime in New York City" (PDF). International Conference on Crime. Retrieved November 15, 2007. "According to NYPD statistics, crime in New York City took a downturn starting around 1990 that continued for many years, shattering all the city’s old records for consecutive-year declines in crime rates" (see Appendix tables 1 and 2) - crime decreased every month for the last 36 months of the Dinkins administration.

Third-party sources may be best but when they are incorrect or do not address the issues, published facts are admissible, are they not? PublicAffairs Books, publisher of the Dinkins memoir, has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Or does Wikipedia value incorrect statements that are properly sourced over published facts themselves? For instance, "Ebony" magazine incorrectly reported that Dinkins graduated magna cum laude from Howard University. In his memoir, Dinkins states that he graduated cum laude. Is it Wikipedia's position that the "Ebony" reportage takes precedence?

Please allow edits to the Dinkins listing to reflect these facts.Pk800 (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Dinkins and Crime

Though a certain mythology has developed to paint Dinkins as the villain and Giuliani as the savior, this article is equally guilty of distortion, particularly on the area of crime.

Unlike what the opening paragraph states, crime under Dinkins did not decrease more than crime under any other mayor, but more than any other PREVIOUS mayor. Even the supposed source does not claim that crime dropped more under Dinkins than under any other mayor afterward. It says "According to NYPD statistics, crime in New York City took a downturn starting around 1990 that continued for many years, shattering all the city’s old records for consecutive-year declines in crime rates." The downturn BEGAN during Dinkins, but anybody who can read a chart can see that crime decreased more during each of Giuliani's terms.

Similarly, it is misleading to refer only to decreases in crime during the Dinkins administration without putting them in proper context - a general INCREASE in crime even from the crime-ridden Koch administration and New York City's pinnacle in crime. While he certainly deserves credit - and quite a bit more than he is given in the press - for the past 20 years' decrease in crime, this article currently provides only praise and reads like a list of accomplishments, particularly on the subject of crime.Deepestfury (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Dinkins took office on January 1, 1990, and crime rose in 1990 as a result of trends begun under Dinkins' predecessors. His policies were put into practice in 1990, and according to FBI and NYPD statistics, which are footnoted in the listing - Langan, Patrick A.; Matthew R. Durose (December 2003). "The Remarkable Drop in Crime in New York City" (PDF). International Conference on Crime. Retrieved November 15, 2007. "According to NYPD statistics, crime in New York City took a downturn starting around 1990 that continued for many years, shattering all the city’s old records for consecutive-year declines in crime rates" (see Appendix tables 1 and 2) - crime decreased every month for the last 36 months of the Dinkins administration.Pk800 (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Then say that. The source does not say that crime "decreased more dramatically and more rapidly than at any time in modern New York City history", the claim you keep inserting even though several editors have pointed out it is not supported by reliable sources. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it does, and it has been accepted by editors. See NPOV Dispute discussion below. See also the cited source Len Riggio, CEO of Barnes & Noble - - in the entry.Pk800 (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

References

The section below a) had no consensus, merely two differing opinions of anon IPs, and b) was not in regard to the current claim in the lede where you insist the source says something it does not say. The person who wrote the preface to Dinkins's autobiography for him is no more an unrelated third-party reliable source than the person who co-wrote the book with/for him. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Riggio is a respected business leader, PublicAffairs is a respected publisher known for publishing responsible non-fiction. Both are reliable sources, as is the NYPD, which issued the relevant statistics.Pk800 (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is questioning the NYPD statistics, merely your POV interpretation of them. Riggio may be the world's greatest businessman; that doesn't make him personally a reliable source for things he has no expertise in, like the NYPD's crime statistics, and self-serving claims in an autobiography aren't exactly reliable sources either. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Facts are facts: 36 consecutive months of verified crime reduction, the Langan/Durose International Conference on Crime statement concerning those statistics and their place in NYC policing history. Unchanged. There is no POV interpretation, there are only the facts. These are not self-serving claims, they are statements by credible sources other than Dinkins. Somehow this is found difficult to accept.Pk800 (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The statement that crime fell "more dramatically and more rapidly than at any time in modern New York City history" needs to be properly sourced. The problem is that it's not. Attributing it to a table of numbers in an FBI report seems to violate WP:No original research (but see WP:CALC). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I concur. At least according to the "crime in New York City" article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City#1990s it spiked from 1905 murders in 1989 (pre-dinkins) to 2245 in 1990, then dropped to 1946 in 1993. In the year after the dinkins administration it dropped to 1561 murders a year. So, yeah during the dinkins administration crime dropped.... but it still plateaud out in an all time high and was 41 murders a year higher at the end than at the start. It's actually misleading with data. The administration brought crime to an all time high, then reduced it a bit over the years, still being higher than before and THAT is supposed to be an achievement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snark7 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute [Mayoralty]

This section is a list of the "accomplishments" of the Dinkins administration without any criticism. The four years of the Dinkins mayoralty were the four highest years of crime in New York City's history - a fact that is glossed over. This article reads like Dinkins campaign literature. Furthermore, it is false to state that crime declined more, or at a greater rate, under Dinkins than under any other mayor, as this paragraph states. It is more than any PREVIOUS mayor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepestfury (talk • contribs) 05:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to remove this NPOV. The section has its correctly cited sources, so it seems objective. If you have contrary opinions and sources to this section, please provide the appropriate sources with proper citations and add them to the proper sections. You may personally disagree with Dinkins, as you may possibly do with the majority of wikipedia articles, but that doesn't make what really happened incorrect. 71.190.247.82 07:49, 13 February 2014

Why does the rest of the world have it all wrong about Dinkins as Mayor?

Since this article often admits it disagrees with conventional wisdom about what a disaster Mr. Dinkins was as mayor, we need an explanation of how that mistake happened. Why is he remembered, as the article implicitly admits, as the ineffectual mayor who presided while NYC sank to its nadir in half a dozen ways? Why did New Yorkers sweep a Republican into office after him, and why was Giuliani considered a savior, at least in the press and the public mind. Perhaps it is racism against Dinkins? Wiki can't just publish an article which flies in the face of public opinion and memory without explaining why that mistake happened, and still persists. Profhum (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Dinkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141010234917/http://www.wbgo.org/wolper to http://www.wbgo.org/wolper

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Is Dinkins' memoir RS for crime stats?

Editors first discussed this issue more than three years ago. (See Dinkins And Crime above.) The consensus was that editor Pk800 needed to produce other sources to back up the claim that "Under Dinkins' Safe Streets, Safe Cities program, crime in New York City decreased more dramatically and more rapidly, both in terms of actual numbers and percentage, than at any time in modern New York City history." (The source for this claim is Dinkins' own memoir, A Mayor's Life.) Several problems exist with this source:

1) The reference is in the book's forward, written by Barnes & Noble Chairman Leonard Riggio, who has no credentials in criminology, policing, political science, or any other field connected with crime. 2) Riggio doesn't cite any sources for his assessment of Mayor Dinkins' crime-fighting prowess. 3) The article's claim doesn't correspond to Riggio's statement, which reads: "crime began [emphasis added] dropping at a faster rate during Mayor Dinkins's tenure than during any other time in the history of New York City." Riggio says nothing about "actual numbers" or "percentage."

In three years, no additonal sources have been cited to support Pk800's claim. Unless further sources can be found, I think the claim should be deleted. Thoughts? Scaleshombre (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, as I did three years ago. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm deleting it. Three years is more than enough time for the original editor to have come up with RS. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Pk800 just reinstated his/her extravagant claim that Under Dinkins' Safe Streets, Safe Cities program, crime in New York City decreased more dramatically and more rapidly, both in terms of actual numbers and percentage, than at any time in modern New York City history. Pk800 now cites both Dinkins' memoir, and the Langan report for support. I'm not a statistician, but I can't find anything in either source to validate Pk800's statement. Accordingly, I've deleted the claim, which I fully expect Pk800 to reinstate in due order. Before I kick this up a notch in the Dispute Resolution process, I'd like to give Pk800 one final chance to justify his actions by explaining here precisely how he derived his claim from the sources, especially Langan. Please explain in a way that's understandable to any reasonably intelligent layman. Thank you. Scaleshombre (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is what a couple of POV pushers are trying to get me blocked for. Telling a true story! Here are the first couple lines from Dinkins autobiography chapter 9: Crime was New York City's number one problem when I was elected mayor. The size of the police department had dwindled under my predecessor, Ed Koch, and crime had risen. In fact, when I entered office crime in New York City had been on an uninterrupted climb for fifteen years. Despite the NYPD's best efforts, there had been 2246 homicides in 1989, 211,130 burglaries, and 91,571 aggravated assaults.

The police department did not dwindle under Koch it increased 3300 from 1980-1989.(appendix table 3 of Langan) The 2246 murders were a record and happened in 1990 during Dinkins term (1990-1993) NOT in 1989 during Koch's(1978-1989). The 211,130 burglaries were a record in 1980 and had fallen sharply during Koch's term to 121,322 by 1989. And there have never been close to 91,571 aggravated assaults in NYC history, where he got that number from is anybodies guess. (These figures appendix table 1 Langan) further corroborating RS:

So are we to believe that Dinkins facts are all wrong yet when he proclaims in the same chapter that "Under the Dinkins administration, crime in New York City decreased more dramatically and more rapidly than at any time in previous New York City history" that is a FACT?Aceruss (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Here is what a couple of POV pushers are trying to get me blocked for. Sorry, but I stopped reading at that point. You must stop attacking other editors. Attacks will never convince anyone of anything. Carefully read WP:AGF. Objective3000 (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Objective3000 It dosen't seem like you assume good faith on my part? I have tried to be nice to you many times and will again here. It is you and MalikShabazz who have reverted my many different types of attempts at editing PK800s edits which he had zero consensus for and uses Dinkins autobiography as his source. MalikShabazz has on this very page argued against PK800s edits. You have said you don't know PK800 and thought his edits were deleted a long time ago. They are not neutral edits as well which is a key Wikipedia principle. As I said on the other page if you revert the Giuliani pages paragraphs to before PK800's edits I will not edit the Giuliani sections in question for at least a year. You, MalikShabazz and many of the editors who complained about PK800 can do the same on this page or work something else out here. I regret if you feel I attacked you, remember I have been at this 8 months you 8 years (or longer).Aceruss (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Aceruss, I just looked back again at every post PK800 made. Effusive text added by that editor is no longer in the Giuliani article. What remains is neutral. It is you that have tried, repeatedly, to add effusive material that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Further, you keep trying to add material about Dinkins that may be a BLP violation as it falsely suggests that Dinkins let crime run wild. We don’t know why you are doing this. But, seven editors have reverted you on the Giuliani article, additional editors on related articles, and you have received nine warnings and a previous block for this. Considering that the article is under discretionary sanctions; it’s amazing you haven’t been blocked. Seriously, you need to stop attacking editors and start listening. Objective3000 (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Objective3000 Let's keep this simple. You say that PK800s changes are no longer in the Giuliani article. That is not correct. They are here in the Dinkins article and in others including the Giuliani article. What I will do is change the Giuliani page paragraph to exactly what it was the day before PK800 edited it with no discussion or consensus. Fair enough?Aceruss (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

What exact change are you proposing? Objective3000 (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

And why is a change to another article being proposed and discussed here? It should be discussed on that article's talk page. As I told you long ago, Aceruss, we don't make horse trades over edits. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not horse trading. It's there are two related issues. 1) PK800s edits were contentious. 2) The edits don't belong on other pages as there are zero accomplishments good or bad of other mayors listed on any other NYC mayors Wikipedia pages, except the ones about Dinkins on Giuliani's page put in by PK800. My proposal is simple: I will revert the paragraph on Giuliani's page to before PK800s edits. Then everyone can debate on this page what should happen to PK800s Dinkins edits on this page whether they belong on this page and if so in what fashion. I would certainly go with the majority. Sound reasonable?Aceruss (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, you are on the wrong page. You cannot debate a change to an article on another article's talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Dinkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202185939/http://www.wlib.com/onair/DavidDinkins.aspx to http://www.wlib.com/onair/DavidDinkins.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131101162407/http://www.myfoxny.com/story/23841785/dinkins-hospitalized to http://www.myfoxny.com/story/23841785/dinkins-hospitalized

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

More sources needed

As a clarification was asked about what needed more sources,

1. He was the first and, to date, the only African American to hold that office.

Appears unreferenced in the lead, but is not referenced in the article body either.

1. As an investor, Dinkins was one of fifty African American investors who helped Percy Sutton found Inner City Broadcasting Corporation in 1971.

Unreferenced

1. Dinkins' campaign manager was political consultant William Lynch, Jr., who became one of his First Deputy Mayors.

Unreferenced

1. The city's revenue-producing events Fashion Week, Restaurant Week and Broadway on Broadway were all created under Dinkins.

Unreferenced

1. Dinkins defeated Giuliani handily in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and the Bronx, but Giuliani's margin in the other two boroughs was large enough to win the election.[citation needed]

Unreferenced, tagged

1. Citywide tickets on which Dinkins ran

The entire section is unreferenced. Although there are references previously on the text about Dinkins running on the elections, there is no reference for the other people running on his ticket mentioned in this section. If it is found in the references scattered throughout the text about his campaigns, the correct ones should be cited here (I didn't check all of them to see if they had this info)

1. Since 1995, Columbia has hosted the annual David N. Dinkins Leadership and Public Policy Forum. Forum keynote speakers have included prominent New York and national leaders such as Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Rangel.

Unreferenced, and unecessary namedropping

1. Personal life

Most of the section is unreferenced

Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

DSA membership

According to Vox and The New Yorker; Dinkins was, in the past, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. I think my statement that he was a "dues-paying" member is the reason that it's being reverted, since it's supposedly Wikipedia:OR. But, as stated on their own Wikipedia article, 100% of the DSA's membership pays dues. You cannot join the DSA without paying dues. In the context of the DSA: "was a member of" and "paid dues to" are literally synonyms. "Membership in the DSA is obtained through the payment of annual dues, which in 2010 ranged from a 'low income and student' rate of $20 to a 'sustainer' rate of $130, with a basic rate of $45."

I'm surprised nobody's attempted to at least take out the part about the dues, since the sources clearly state he was a member. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

First, looking through your history, your insistence in labeling innumerable BLPs as socialists is bothersome as that term is broad and considered a pejorative by many millions of people, as well as being largely misunderstood. Secondly, adding terms like “dues paying” and “card carrying” are not only WP:OR, but inflammatory as they bring up shades of McCarthyism. Thirdly, your efforts have included in one page a 35 year old article to claim present tense. Also, I have to mention that you marked 40.8% of your edits as minor edits, when so many are clearly not. What exactly is your purpose here?

Ignoring all that, Dinkins is 91 years old. When was he a member of this party, how was he a member of this party, and what was that party about at that time? O3000 (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you refer to the DSA as a party just goes to show that you don't even understand what is being discussed. This is comparable to an argument about, say, Dinkins' birthplace. I'm saying that he was born in New Jersey. You're saying that that's OR, since he was born in Trenton. I'm saying that in order to be born in Trenton, he must also by definition be born in New Jersey as well. All the while, the birthplace is being removed along with New Jersey-specific categories. In order to become a member, you must pay dues. That's how it's always been. You can't do one and not do the other. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

"Due-paying", "card-carrying"—whatever this week's slander or slur is, we're not interested. Another part of the problem is the specific text you keep edit-warring to insert: Why would you end a section with a statement that "Dinkins was previously a DSA member." Neither source says when he was a member, only that it was in the past. Was he a member last year, or in the 1970s? Why did you choose to insert it in the article right after his election to the mayoralty? Did he stop paying dues when he moved to Gracie Mansion? This is a WP:BLP. Reliable and on-point sources, please. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure where this sort of language is coming from, that and the Satan thing from earlier edits, but I'd like to stress one more time that you cannot become a member (as in, it is literally not possible) of the organization that is presently known as the Democratic Socialists of America, commonly abbreviated to the initialism "DSA", without first paying the organization annual dues (that is to say: every year) in US dollars. I know this, considering it says so on it's own Wikipedia article. Unless that's also OR. I'm not entirely sure when he left the group, the articles don't say. That doesn't mean he wasn't a member, though. I'll admit that I added the socialism label to several articles without first listing sources. But I've found that even after listing sources from historians, academics and/or journalists, the sources are rejected for arbitrary reasons like how old a particular source is. I'm actually trying to help further understanding of the ideology by chronicling the people that have or currently are associated with it. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. There is no way you could know who pays dues. O3000 (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article cites the DSA's own damn website.

Also, I am a dues-paying member of the DSA. This is absolutely ridiculous. This is literally the webpage you go to in order to become a member. You may notice that the only way to do so is to pay annual dues. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so I took out the "dues-paying" part, since that's what everyone's upset over for no reason at all. But according to @Malik Shabazz: having two separate sources explicitly state that Dinkins was a member of the DSA is actually just speculation, since it doesn't give us exact dates of when he was in the DSA. He asks if it was in the 1970s, despite the organization literally not existing at that point in time. This whole experience has been utterly surreal. Between being confused as a political party and not knowing that it was founded in 1982, then being lectured that "no, you don't need to pay dues to become a member," then being told, "no, two sources that say 'David Dinkins was a member of the DSA' don't actually say that David Dinkins was a member of the DSA." I feel like I'm in Bizzaro World here. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

If anybody should feel like he's in living in an alternate reality, it's me. Do you understand written English? I didn't write that Dinkins' membership in DSA was speculation. As I've written multiple times, your assertion of when Dinkins was a member of DSA is sheer speculation. Neither source you cite addresses it, merely saying (in 2017 and 2018) that it was in the past. Was he a member in the 1970s, as one article suggests? Was he a member when he ran to be mayor of New York? Was he a member when he served as mayor? Neither source says, but you want to say. There's a term for that, original research, and it's not permitted, especially not in a WP:BLP. Am I making myself clear? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

PS - Before you waste my time or yours, I know that DSA was established in the 1980s, but I also know that it was established through the merger of two older Socialist groups. It would be exceedingly silly to argue that Dinkins must have joined some time after the merger and couldn't have been, say, a member of DSOC before the merger, just because the sources say he was a DSA member and don't mention possible DSOC membership. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be Wikipedia:OR to speculate that he may have been a DSOC member, Malik? Maybe you should find me two sources that confirm that. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should throw out your source because it quotes a Harrington speech about Jimmy Carter from 1976, years before DSA existed? We can play this game all weekend if you'd like. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

O...kay? I mean yeah, he founded the organization. He... existed prior to 1982. What's your point? Is it literally just that I shouldn't have put his DSA membership where I did? If I move it towards the bottom would you take a fuckin' chill pill? IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 04:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I corrected that eight your old info on that article. It needs more work. As I said, Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. And the fact that they have a registration page (which allows you to fill in your own payment) means nothing. This is pure WP:SYNTH. As for Dinkins, was he a party member for a day or decades? Was it 30 years ago, or where you suggested in your edit? Was it honorary, or active? Did he know he was a member? Did he claim he was a member? This one cite is less than vague. O3000 (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Why is the guy who thought the DSA was a political party telling the DSA member what is required to join the DSA? The article I use as a source even compares the size of the DSA to larger left-leaning groups like UltraViolet and Indivisible, but noting that they're likely larger since members aren't required to pay dues.

"UltraViolet, a group that advocates women’s reproductive rights, currently has 300,000 members (though they don’t pay dues). The group Indivisible didn’t exist until after the 2016 election. It now has 3,800 local chapters to DSA’s 177. (Though, again, Indivisible members don’t have to pay dues.)" IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

If the year of Dinkin's membership was known, this would help a lot. While nowadays it's true you cannot be a DSA member without also paying dues, and I appreciate the Trenton, NJ analogy, it would be original research to say this has been the lifelong policy, without exceptions, say for honorary members or just different policies in the beginning. Shushugah (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything that says dues are always paid now. The form has a blank where you can fill in your own number and says no one will be turned down for inability to pay. They may also have honorary membership. They may also have had a period decades ago with a different policy. It's also a completely unnecessary addition that sounds McCartheist in nature. In any case, it is WP:SYNTH to look at one source that says he was a member at one time, and another source that is a current signup page. On top of all this, I'm bothered by the editor edit-warring this into multiple BLPs sourced to one article by a source that is four years old when it doesn't appear to exist in any other sources. O3000 (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I cannot understand why we're focused on the dues. It looks to me like we've got two solid sources to say he was a member of the DSA. Can't we just say something to effect of "Dinkins, a Democrat, was at one point also a member of the Democratic Socialists of America". I don't see why it matters whether he paid dues (although could certainly mention it if we had a source that says he did) and I don't see why we have to know exactly what years he was associated with the DSA (although, again, we could certainly mention it if we had a source that says he did). ButtonwoodTree (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the dues stuff is silly, another reason it should be omitted. I’m concerned about mentioning membership in a “socialist” organization in a BLP without some concept of time. Was it for decades or a week? Recent or long ago? Was it when they endorsed Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or when they endorsed Walter Mondale? O3000 (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

If you can't understand the issue, I recommend you re-read the sources. We're dealing with an attempt to red-bait politicians with a decades-old issue that barely rises above the trivial, despite the fact that one of the sources clearly says "the DSA has served as a signaling device for some Democrats — including black politicians from major American cities — to distinguish themselves from the party’s centrist wing." Whether Dinkins—or any black Democrat from New York or another major city, I would argue—was a member of DSA is of much less significance than whether a white "heartland" Democrat was a member, because it wasn't viewed with much more importance than membership in the NAACP. But hey, let's spend dozens of hours edit-warring and arguing over a stupid point because some shitty sources mention his name. Gotcha editing. It's what Wikipedia editors excel at. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Can we come to an agreement here? This is one of the most pointless arguments I've ever been in (and this is on Wikipedia, so that's really saying something). We know that Dinkins was a DSA member, we know he isn't one anymore, we just don't know when he was or wasn't (except that he wasn't as of at least August 2017), we don't know if he paid any dues (we do know, but for the sake of appeasement, I'll say it's a mystery). I see no problem putting this in the non-chronological "Personal life" section of the article, that way Malik won't throw a conniption fit over its placement in Dinkins' timeline.

He's 91 years old, he hasn't been in office in 25 years, he only served 1 term as Mayor. I'm gonna be honest and say that I've honestly never heard of him until I read the New Yorker article and saw "Former NYC Mayor David Dinkins used to be a DSA member" and figured I'd add him to the category of DSA members and make a note in the article itself. I'm doing this because I am, myself, a DSA member. I'm a socialist. Accusations of McCarthyism are completely ridiculous, like this is somehow going to negatively affect Dinkins' reputation or something. It's not McCarthyism to say someone was a DSA member when they actually were a DSA member, I'm not just making this shit up or anything.

So what should we do? I don't see a legitimate reason to exclude the information, so if anybody has a better idea to implement it, please let me know. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK. O3000 (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

My vote would be to include it and mention that it was at some point in the past. Since it is sourced, I see no reason to exclude it and it's hardly as though political affiliations are irrelevant to a career politician, even if they were somewhat fleeting. The fact is, when you're a politician, the political and social organizations you've affiliated yourself with, seem relevant. ButtonwoodTree (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)