Talk:Mike Arcuri

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress 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.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) person(s).

Biased?

This article seems to have a conservative bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davfoster88 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Innacurate

Several re-edits regarding information (Faulty Convictions while DA, as well as a long history of suspicious activity) this individual perhaps finds "negative" are repeatedly removed. This is not a "PR" page Mr. Arcuri. Again this article has been "cleaned" of any "negative" information by those close to Mr. Arcuri it seems.

Requested citations have been added, please try to control the urge to revise history on Mr. Arcuri's behalf. All additional information and references have now been added so we shoudn't be having these problems any longer.

Random voting results

Do the voting results on drilling provide any information on this congressperson that couldn't be better summarized? And why do we mention one non-notable scorecard? Carte Rouge (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the section. It took up about half the article, making this a coatrack. If someone adds it back, please discuss it here and provide some independent source that this issue is notable in connection with this particular person. Jonathunder (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

In an attempt to bring this article above "start class" I have been studying other House Rep's Wikipages and trying to make this article more uniform.

This article has a history of edits which seem to be more public relations fluff than a uniform Wiki. I will likely research and prepare "Committees" and "Legislative Highlights" sections to balance out the article, and make it more uniform to other House Member's wikis. Also I note there is much ancillary or extraneous information added which doesn't contribute to the article, such as Arcuri being "only the 3rd Democrat to get elected in the county in "X" years etc., nor were references cited. This article was beginning to read like a palm-card. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weissman129 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Liberal even by New York standards"?

The article offers an uncited claim that Arcuri is "liberal even by New York standards." One metric, at [1], suggests that he's among the more conservative Democrats in the House (tied for 160th out of 241). He's also a member of the conservative/moderate Blue Dog coalition. Claim should probably be taken out. 68.194.217.223 (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

current dispute

It seems there has been a bit of an edit war here, and no discussion on this page for 10 months. Please discuss here and/or pursue a third opinon or other forms of dispute resolution. If there are serious WP:BLP problems that need fixing, use {{editprotected}} to request appropriate fixes. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearing 'controversy' section.

If we could get a little help or perhaps a lock on this page, we again are having issues with vandals removing clearly cited controversies removed from the Rep's page. Not hard to figure out why considering the man's past. They are persistant and have continuously removed cited references. If it continues I will sign in and track down a few editors who are aware of the last few episodes of this occurence. Again it seems someone sympathetic to Mr. Arcuri cannot resist removing cited items from the "controversy" section.

If you don't like people reading about percieved "negative" activity Mr. Congressman, perhaps you should clean up your act so they aren't written in the first place. Additionally, I note the section noting Mr. Arcuri's bare win over candidate Richard Hanna in 2008 has also been removed. This Wiki is victim to a 'cleanup crew' most likely the work of Arcuri's side. Who else would care or bother? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.50.152 (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the issue and applied for protection. I don't understand why this information is being considered "Libelous" by anyone it seems accurate and is repeated elsewhere in biographies on the person. I agree that it seems like an involved party is behind the defacing here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.50.152 (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that you keep putting in quotes things I'm not saying, indicating you don't know what quotation marks are for, but since you're in blatant violation of WP:SOCK and WP:NPA, I won't bother. Bring Weissman129 over here to agree with you and I might reconsider. The accusations are important, though. The more you claim I'm Mike Arcuri (nope), the more likely you'll get blocked. Şłџğģő 04:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the excessive detail to the controversy section, gives it far too much weight, there is no support here to include it, the issue is mentioned and there are four citations for any interested parties to go and read the titilating partisan commentary, suggest, dropping the stick and moving along. Off2riorob (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--I was wondering why "Someone" keeps deleting the ethical problems this man seems to have. He's currently running for County Judge so go on tell us how irrelevant that supposedly is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.223.192.41 (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

Ok, I've just deleted the whole controversy section for now. There were 4 references, 3 of which didn't talk about the content (the murder case) at all and 1 of which only talked about 1/4 of the content (and much more favorably then the section itself). I was trying to just slice it down to only fit that 1 reference I could find but then I realized the reference itself also had big issues (since it was talking about a murder case in 06 which appears to have actually happened in 02 etc). If someone wants to rewrite a Neutral section then obviously but that one wasn't salvageable. James (T C) 23:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incumbent

He is still the incumbent as I understand till Jan, has this been discussed anywhere? It is being removed from the infobox, what is the general position as regards this? Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]