Talk:India Walton

Made image request

I messaged Walton on Twitter to ask if she would be willing to CC license a photo for use in this article. I pointed her to c:Commons:Wikimedia OTRS release generator, so hopefully she sees it and is willing. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Good luck! dekema (Formerly Buffaboy) (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Do not delete this article.

She will become the first socialist mayor of a large city in the US since 1960.

The bad editors of this site really suck. You know who you are. You make this site worse by the day.

AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they have not already won. The grounds for an article will be if she wins the election in November, not just winning a primary to be her party's candidate. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

AllThatJazz2012, assume good faith, and stick to discussing content, not contributors. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I have great distain for socialism but this candidate has won a primary and,in the state of New York,when a Democrat wins a primary there is a reasonable chance that he or she will hold said elected office. It seems a decision entirely based in political biases rather than any other good reason. I hope Ms. Walton loses. But she didn't and so why eliminate the article? Mrinzeo (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe the Republican Party did not even bother nominating anybody, and virtually all news sources are treating her as the presumptive mayor at this point. Deleting the article would be absurd. --Jfruh (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources that might be useful, please add more!

• Lacy, Akela (June 23, 2021). "Socialist India Walton Will Be Buffalo's Next Mayor". The Intercept.

• Thank you. The source was useful. Jon698 (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism by Jon698

We had a good, collaborative article going this morning, but Jon698 woke up and made this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India_Walton&diff=1030038534&oldid=1030037411.

His reasoning? "removing unimportant information, reorganizing, removing unsourced information, and adding stuff from the draft I made before this article".

So he was mad that the party started without him last night, and he's trying to replace the good writing we had with whatever he had drafted. He doesn't understand basic grammatical phrasing and I'm about to abandon the article completely. I helped save the article this morning from being deleted by a rogue admin, so I'd like to see it become something high quality. Jon698 for whatever reason believes India's community activism through Open Buffalo and the Fruit Belt Community Land Trust isn't notable, even though I sourced it all and she talks about it repeatedly in all of her interviews - it's a natural stepping stone she took to politics. Jon698 just keeps deleting it. Along with her family's background. And a dozen other things that were sourced. Sad.TheNewMinistry (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• I am done dealing with you, your conspiratorial ideas, and your endless insults to an autistic person. Do not comment on my talk page anymore and this will be my last comment towards you. Jon698 (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

How would I know or care that you're autistic? TheNewMinistry (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Democratic socialist

Isn't she a democratic socialist (if not a member of the Democratic Socialists of America? Most news articles describe her as such, but the current version of this article does not. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• The article already states that she is a socialist. Jon698 (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it does not say anywhere that they are a democrat socialist. I have added it to the page.TheGEICOgecko (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Date of birth

A website says she is born June 14th, 1982. [1] Is it valid? Should it be added to the article? --TheRandomIP (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

First Socialist Mayor since 1960s

Regarding India Walton as being the first major city to have a socialist mayor since the 1960s if elected I'm not sure because Sanders was mayor of Burlington in the 1980s. Also I just checked and Ron Dellums was mayor of Oakland from 2007-2011. I understand that major is a vague term, but I feel these two examples make me question how accurate this claim is. Thoughts? 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Legal issues - Undue section

The section "Legal issues" lends undue weight to certain incidents or controversies, counter to WP:BLPBALANCE. This section should be folded into other sections and presented in a more balanced manner. For example, she has 4 children but that is only mentioned in the infobox. There is no "Personal life" section. All together this article does not give a balanced view of the subject. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I've added most of it to the early life section since it was related to her time before political activism. The exception is the towing incident which I included as part of the campaign though I'm suspicious of whether her car getting towed is so important as to be part of a biography. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of unsavory content

Three additions to the article were deleted today:

• During a 2020 podcast, Walton said, "Police are an evolution of slave patrols that were invented, um, you know, after the abolition of slavery, and during slavery, to reclaim back when black people were considered property, right?"
• In 2020, Walton attended a protest at Buffalo Police headquarters where she repeated into a megaphone, "No justice, no peace. Fuck these racist ass police".
• In October 2021, Walton apologized to Buffalo Common Councilmember Joseph Golombek for a comment she made on his Facebook account in 2020 after Golombek had posted "something along the lines of 'Buffalo Police are all that stand between anarchy and safety'", to which Walton replied " "YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT TENDER *expletive* WHITE MAN."

This is an almost unknown candidate in an upcoming election, and her past behavior and public comments are being reported in reliable sources. In fact, Walton's apology was front page news in Buffalo. WP:DUE calls for all viewpoints to be considered, but this doesn't mean adding milquetoast edits all over Wikipedia, especially when lots of what is being reported in reliable sources isn't glowing. Moreover, don't fault an editor for reporting tabloid-sounding behaviors about a person who is participating in tabloid-sounding behaviors. Go fight with the Buffalo News for reporting it. If this article is unbalanced, go find reliable sources and balance it. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I think you misunderstand our policies on neutral point of view and biographies of living people. Firstly, WP:BLPBALANCE explicitly contradicts your last point: The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Quite simply it must be balanced at all times, and the onus is on you to ensure that your edits do not unbalance an article. Second, WP:DUE says that we cover viewpoints in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. There is a subsection of that policy at WP:PROPORTION that you should read: discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Lastly, WP:NOTTABLOID does not have an exception for when someone gets a lot of tabloid-like coverage, in fact it agrees with the above policies: Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person.

Taken together, our policies on neutrality and biographies set a high bar for inclusion. Walton has received national press coverage discussing her policies and significance in the American political landscape alongside endorsements from federal officials including a Vermont senator; she is not "almost unknown". You confuse us for a local newspaper, but as the world's largest encyclopedia our content is not dictated by what the Buffalo News thinks is important today. Our policies are explicit that we have an editorial role in deciding what aspects are trivial and not worth including. To the billions of other people in the world, what Walton yelled through a bullhorn once is simply not important for understanding her place in the American political landscape. The national press is not buzzing about how she said the word "dick" on Facebook and apologized. A non-notable, self-published comedy podcast with a circulation of 400 is not a high quality source for her views when compared to any policy white paper she has published on her website or which has been covered in the national press. We are not a repository of random quotes you found on the internet, and we are not a play-by-play report of the current news cycle in Buffalo.

I'm suspicious of its usefulness, but I'm willing to consider ways of including the information you want that are not copy-pasting whatever unflattering quotes we can find. We're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or voting guide, and it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. If you can suggest a revision that is in line with those policies and principles, I'm willing to consider it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Possible redirect

Based on the results of the election, I don't believe that Walton meets WP:NPOL as an unelected municipal candidate. She has been the subject of local, regional, and national coverage, but it seems that most of it covers her election, and not her specifically. I think the page's history should be preserve, given the possibility of a future political career, leading me to believe that a redirect to 2021 Buffalo mayoral election would be the best option here. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KidAd (talk • contribs) 18:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Keep As she's not just a local losing candidate, but the fact that she won the primary and the party didn't support her is going to be a lasting touchpoint for future commentary and relevance. I mean, no Crystal Ball here, but I don't see her race and her candidacy going the same way as the 2017 Buffalo election or other less significant races. JesseRafe (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Keep WP:NPOL includes Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage, and there appears to be substantial support for this in the article, and WP:NPOL also states Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. There also appears to be support for WP:GNG, including e.g. Guardian (July 11, 2021, includes biographical information), People (November 1, 2021, includes biographical information and references "a sprawling new profile for The New Yorker"), The Washington Post (November 1, 2021, includes biographical information, noting "As much as her message, Walton’s biography has served as part of her appeal to voters.") It also seems reasonable to expect there will be additional reporting and commentary after the mayoral race is concluded that could further support WP:NPOL notability. But as far as I can tell, she has not yet conceded, and votes are continuing to be counted. Beccaynr (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Bad Venue. Bring this to AfD if you'd like to delete the page or propose a redirect. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I started this conversation as a precursor to a possible AfD. And as I said, I am more in favor of a redirect to the election page over hard deletion. With all of that said, people appear to be "voting" anyway. KidAd • SPEAK 00:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad you started the discussion here, KidAd, because I had also wondered about a redirect, but then found what I consider to be additional in-depth coverage that I added to the article and I think helps support WP:GNG and/or the "significant press coverage" prong of WP:NPOL, and in any event, it seems a bit premature because the election is not quite over and there may be more coverage soon. Beccaynr (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Keep Discussing whether to convert an article to a redirect on the article talk page is perfectly fine per the guideline on redirects. If anything the talk page is better than AFD since we're not considering deletion. The most recent AFD from a few months ago found consensus that the subject meets the GNG, and Beccaynr gives more recent sources to support that finding. NPOL says that unelected candidates "can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline" so I don't see any reason to redirect just because of election results; notability is not temporary. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Political Positions

I am of the belief that the political position section is too long and detailed, especially since it appears she lost her election (see WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION). I think this can be trimmed to at most two short paragraphs that broadly explain her reason for identifying as a Democratic socialist and a few primary positions that she ran on. --Enos733 (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The section has been recently trimmed, and there are a variety of her positions that RS discuss, so there appears to be context for a variety of her specific positions - it may be that the article actually needs to be reorganized a bit, and the political positions incorporated into the Mayoral campaign section. I'd like to take some time to consider this, including because I am in the midst of working on another article. It also seems better to wait for the pending AfD to conclude before content and sources are mass-deleted from the article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Emerging Scholars

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 February 2022 and 22 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gshall2 (article contribs).

Detail, sources, WP:NPOV

BottleOfChocolateMilk, I think it would be better to discuss the various changes I made to your addition, per WP:BRD, than to revert all of it. I outlined a variety of reasons and I am willing to further discuss my reasoning. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Beccaynr you did not "outline a variety of reasons." You didn't even say what specifically I wrote that was unsupported by the references. It seems entirely relevant to note that the person who filed the complaint against Walton overtly, unambiguously said in the cited source that she did so because she supports Walton's opponent. Also, I noticed that in your original round of edits you claimed that the sentence about Wingo telling Walton he would run for re-election was "unsupported by ref." After I pointed out that it absolutely is supported it by ref, you removed that section entirely because of "excessive detail." I am curious why you decided the second time around that this is "excessive detail" and whether you stand by your original claim that that piece of information is not supported by the reference. Also, if you're making a series of minor edits, please do them all in the same edit to avoid clogging up the revision history. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• In this [2] revision of your addition, my edit summary states "rm text unsupported by ref, add content from ref", because from my view, it does not appear supported by the source to summarize Walton's statement "I spoke with him last week for a good hour, and he said he was running again, so I don't know what changed between now and then. But I think that it's a good decision, and there's time to make way for new ideas." as "expressed surprise, saying he had told her the previous week that he would run for another term." Particularly the "expressed surprise" part, so from my view, it is better to just state what she said.
• I then made further revisions [3], with the edit summary, "rm unsourced, add content from ref, ce, move text for chronology and clarity, condense excess/repetitive detail, ce NPOV loaded language". And your revert [4] undid all of the revisions.
• I have continued to review and edit the article because there is a lot of content and it seems a bit WP:UNDUE to have this much detail, with limited sourcing, this early in the campaign. I am not opposed to further expansion, but I question how much detail is warranted in an article about Walton, based on the available sources. Inclusion of the detail that one of the people who filed the eligibility challenge against Walton was an Everhart supporter may be warranted, and I missed that in my review of the source that introduces them both as "community activists" - but from my view, it does not support text that says both filers were Everhart supporters. I don't see discussion of the second filer.
• Also, I typically try to combine minor edits, and I appreciate your patience with my attempts to polish what are otherwise very helpful additions to this article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)