[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Lee Zeldin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article Structure

[edit]

This is a two parter!

Firstly, I don't think the second paragraph of lead belongs in the lead. The Trump administration is over, so it's not really as relevant to leave that in. It should probably be put in the already long and well-sourced section on the Trump administration in the body of the article.

Secondly, I believe that tenure in the New York State senate should be condensed, and that many of the "Zeldin voted for this" should belong in the political positions section. I don't see why some of his votes should belong in the tenure section while some are delegated to the political positions. I would say that the State Senate tenure sections should be condensed into one part saying bills that were introduced by him, or legislation that he actually had some part in the passing of the legislation. I would be willing to go back in the archives and find votes more relevant to Zeldin as an individual.

I'm asking this on the talk page to see if I can get more than one response and scope out where the general consensus is at, instead of making these changes myself that could easily be reverted by a single editor. Let me know what you think! Cheers.Capisred (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Capisred: Thanks for starting this discussion. I think your proposal to restructure the article is generally good. Marquardtika (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, that’s a bit over the top. Blocked for ownership? I see Capisred gauging consensus and working collaboratively. Capisred, why don’t you post your suggested changes to the article here and anyone interested can weigh in. I’d recommend putting everything in a sandbox and linking to it since it’s likely to be a lot of text. Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the second proposal, I'm going to try and just add a couple of the state senate points to the political positions, and try and put some of the political positions of late in the tenure category for the congress part, which is currently very scarce. I won't be changing too much aside from the first proposal, I don't want to rock the boat too much! Capisred (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that the first change would be good. Maybe for your second idea it would be a good idea to move things from one section to another if they are explicit political positions or rephrase it in a shorter way. GreenMonke98 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should summarize the body. If the Trump administration section is the longest section and if Zeldin received substantial coverage due to his views and actions regarding Trump, then that should be in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it summarizes the body. The Trump admin section is only the longest section because of the general trend of the executive branch (especially Trump's) being heavily covered much more than the legislative branch here on Wikipedia. I believe the lead should include information about the individual, not their relations. It's not like Zeldin served in the Trump white house or anything. Just my thoughts! Let me know what you think, and thank you for your input. Capisred (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If sources covered his support of Trump more than his legislative efforts because they found those to be more worthy of note, then the article should reflect that. I also am unclear on why Trump no longer being president makes it not "relevant", as the lead is supposed to reflect the most important information, not serve as a news ticker. Besides, it isn't like Trump is no longer involving himself in politics anymore - the article mentions Zeldin considering whether he should campaign with the guy or not just 2 months ago. Sounds relevant to me. 2600:1002:B1C0:FD62:0:18:BE9A:4101 (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Four additional months have passed since the discussion, and I slightly shortened the second paragraph about Zeldin under Trump's presidency and explained it by: "I added a sentence on gubernatorial elections. I removed a sentence on his congress votes from years ago from the second paragraph."
It was the first time I edited the Zeldin page, and I have not edited any page about US politics in a very long time. I received quite an aggressive threat about being blocked to my wall: "Warning: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1): Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Lee Zeldin, you may be blocked from editing. BlueboyLINY (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)"
The Trump presidency is long gone, isn't it time to have the lead paragraph on this page focus on something else and not Trump? Is it not suitable to have the paragraph on Trump and Zeldin to be at least a bit shorter?
Maybe like this: During Donald Trump's presidency, Zeldin was a staunch Trump ally. After Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, Zeldin voted against certification of Arizona's and Pennsylvania's electoral votes.[1][2][3][4] Topjur01 (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that listing the Trump specific points in the lede is somewhat odd. Even though the Trump administration section of his bio is the longest section, it is still an overall small portion of the article. It's not like Zeldin was a part of the Trump administration. I tried moving it but was reverted. Any other opinions on this? Seems like discussion has died down for months. TocMan (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Curious to get input from Capisred, Topjur01, Snooganssnoogans, GreenMonke98, BlueboyLINY if anyone is still interested in this issue. I find it weird that we list this one particular highly controversial vote in the lede rather than leaving it with the other stuff in Zeldin's voting history. I have tried modifying it but unfortunately BlueboyLINY disagrees. Any opinions on this or am I alone in thinking this? To me listing the vote to decertify in its own paragraph in the lede would be like putting Biden's vote for the Iraq War in his lede. --TocMan (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TocMan here. It seems odd to stick a detail like this in the lede; it's not something that's central to Zeldin's political career. MisterWat3rm3l0n (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lede should summarize the body, and Zeldin received substantial coverage due to his views and actions regarding Trump, sources covered his support of Trump more than his legislative efforts because they found those to be more worthy of note. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source or campaign website, and as such should not be subject to censoring history. Zeldin's vote against certifying the 2020 election is not a minor detail, the January 6 United States Capitol attack was an historical event, and Zeldin's actions on that day are an important historical detail. The lede is supposed to reflect the most important information, and Zeldin's support of Trump is a major part of his political career. - BlueboyLINY (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a consensus among users apart from one BlueboyLINY who insists. Usually in such caases someone should warn and then, if he disrupts, block such a user. Topjur01 (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your math is off, @Snooganssnoogans: and 2600:1002:B1C0:FD62:0:18:BE9A:4101's comments make three users not one. Which makes it an impasse, not a consensus. - BlueboyLINY (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am very late here, but I am glad to see that this edit has finally been made.GeorgeBailey (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Brune, Tom (January 6, 2021). "Rep. Zeldin to object to count of electoral votes". Newsday. Retrieved May 1, 2021.
  2. ^ Yourish, Karen; Buchanan, Larry; Lu, Denise (January 7, 2021). "The 147 Republicans Who Voted to Overturn Election Results". New York Times. Retrieved May 1, 2021.
  3. ^ Zhou, Li (January 7, 2021). "147 Republican lawmakers still objected to the election results after the Capitol attack". Vox. Retrieved May 1, 2021.
  4. ^ Leonard, Ben (March 18, 2021). "Zeldin gets testy when asked if Biden won election". Politico. Retrieved May 1, 2021.

There's no censoring of history here, it's all very thoroughly documented in the body. I think it is a fraught issue when we are choosing to highlight one and only one highly controversial vote in the lede. Again, the Iraq War happened but that doesn't mean we should prominently feature that one vote at the top of the page for any relevant politician. It's not a campaign site for his opponent either. Thanks TocMan (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Military career

[edit]

Recent edits have questioned the accuracy of the information in the section on Zeldin's military career, e.g. [1]. I find the section is weakly sourced, though. One source is Zeldin's own web page, not reliable in this context. The other two are publications which have conducted interviews with Zeldin, and it's unknown how much effort they spent vetting the accuracy of what Zeldin told them in the interview, or a pre-interview list of items. So how do we update the article to get the facts straight? signed, Willondon (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RS: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Therefore I have removed the questionable material until, and if a verifiable source is found. BlueboyLINY (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The military photo counts as inaccurate? Are we implying that the photo could be photoshopped or otherwise fake? How can we solve this issue without doing original research? GeorgeBailey (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is probably not inaccurate, or photoshopped or fake. It's the caption describing it as "Zeldin in Iraq in 2006", which is not corroborated by a source. I don't think the photo as it stands is sufficient proof of military service, especially a specific place and time of service. signed, Willondon (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Willondon, I agree with you, the photo does not appear to be faked or photoshopped. That is not the reason it was removed. If Zeldin's DD 214 does not corroborate his deployment, and all we have are puff pieces where the content is based on information that Zeldin provided, we should not be including questionable material. The onus is on the editor adding content to provide a reliable source. BlueboyLINY (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute

[edit]

NPOV dispute [- Main Section. The use of the word "false" to President Trump's claims of fraud is wholly improper and fosters a talking point advanced by one political party. The true narrative based in fact is that the question of fraud not only is being investigated on the state legislative level in a number of states, including Arizona and Pennsylvania, but also a bill has been presented to the Arizona legislature seeking to decertify the 2020 election based on fraud. See AZ HBR 2033. [1]

State legislatures are enumerated the power over administering Federal elections under the US Constitution. As such, said legislatures are using the power granted to them under the Constitution to conduct hearings on voter fraud. Logically, any assertion that allegations of fraud are "false" while in fact, the matter is one in active dispute with a picture of Hitler as a reference is disgusting, partisan, not based in fact and not supported by the record.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.72.125 (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the Hitler picture is a bit much, and I can change that, but false is just the correct language to use. With your claims of "since the legislature is looking into this", I know that this sort of sets up a guilty until proven innocent kind of mentality, but for such a wild claim you need wild evidence, and that just isn't present and very likely won't be. Also, I would suggest that you make a Wikipedia account as not to send your IP over the internet, and that you sign your comments! I hope you understand where I'm coming from. GeorgeBailey (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The users comments about me here and here indicate they are not here to WP:CO and help build an encyclopedia. They've made a false assumption based solely on my username. WIkipedia is no place for trolling. BlueboyLINY (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://fastdemocracy.com/bill-search/az/55th-2nd-regular/bills/AZB00014431/
[edit]

In the lead, the phrase "false claims" should be linked to the high quality page Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. Currently, the word false is linked to "the big lie" and claims is linked to the attempts page. Since "the big lie" is a term used almost exclusively by Democratic activists, having that page linked gives off the impression that this article does not follow NPOV. Linking exclusively to the attempts page, which is less of a loaded political term, gives off a better impression to the average passerby. Additionally, the page linked showing Hitler is insulting. Following NPOV is key including in our phraseology. GeorgeBailey (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022 assault

[edit]

The article describes the weapons as a plastic keychain which is a lie by omission. The key fob is made out of hard plastic with sharp ears so that it can be used as a self-defense weapon. It is designed to not look like a weapon but it is a weapon. Also, the article does not mention that the attack occurred after his opponent, Kathy Hochul, publicized his campaign appearances, including times, dates, and locations, to her followers. 152.130.9.74 (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a clause at the end that says that its intended use is self-defense. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black belt

[edit]

Zeldin says his martial arts training helped save him from injury during the July 2022 assault. The article does not mention his martial arts experience. In which discipline is he a black belt? 152.130.9.74 (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taekwondo, apparently. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Youngest attorney

[edit]

Zeldin was once the youngest attorney in New York state. Many sources state this, 13 of which I have linked, including sources that appear in WP:RSPSS. This keeps getting reverted. What source would be considered "good enough"? GeorgeBailey (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTEVERYTHING says Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight.
It is a matter for consensus whether particular information should be included. You clearly think it should, GeorgeBailey. It does not seem encyclopaedic to me. We'll see what others say. ColinFine (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is sourced doesn't mean it belongs in the lede. I think information about prior congressional runs are fine, Lee Zeldin can direct people to his personal website if they want to learn more about how young of an attorney he was. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section of a well-written Wikipedia article should summarize the most important points in the body of the article. I see no mention of this factoid in the body. We currently have In 2004, he was admitted to the New York State Bar but the reference that follows does not verify that. The 2004 date, if accurate, would put him as 24 when he became an attorney, which does not seem dramatically young to me. So, fix the body of the article first. Cullen328 (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, I thought that the claim was that Zeldin was the youngest attorney in New York history. On closer look, it appears that Zeldin may have been the youngest attorney in New York at one specific point in time. That is an irrelevant triviality. The sources appear to be repeating Zeldin campaign talking points, and I see no evidence of original reporting of this factoid. I can see no good reason to include this in the lead. and really doubt that it should be included at all. Cullen328 (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2 shot at Zeldin home.

[edit]

Breaking news shows that gunshots hit 2 people in bushes at Zeldin home, his teenage daughters ran upstairs and called 9-1-1. 2601:343:C380:1C50:44EC:6DAC:9868:D458 (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BREAKING, be patient. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also see WP:NOTNEWS BlueboyLINY (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That, too. This might be important enough to include, but we can wait for the dust to settle first. NY1 says he wasn't home at the time. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems as most of the basic details have come out. Somebody should insert it after more things are confirmed tomorrow. GeorgeBailey (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:NOTNEWS. Suffolk County Police said the shooting has no connection to the Zeldin family.[2] – Muboshgu (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the motive of the shooting didn't have much to do with the congressional or gubernatorial campaign, but people involved in this situation affected Zeldin's property directly the teenagers could be seen on security-camera footage hiding underneath his porch and near a bush in front of his porch.[3]. This sort of situation is news, and should get a small sentence in the personal life section. If we link this story, I would recommend linking the New York Times article, which explains everything well.GeorgeBailey (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that this sort of situation is news, but we are an encyclopedia. We are not a newspaper. It doesn't have encyclopedic bearing on Zeldin and so should not be included in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I assumed that since it involved his family or property that it might be in that grey area, but that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification! Thankfully Zeldin was not directly involved! I appreciate the help. GeorgeBailey (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being anti-abortion, the Long Island congressman told Capital Tonight that he will not roll back the abortion law that New York passed in 2019, which codified Roe into state law.

[edit]

Zeldin has indicated that if elected, he will not change New York's abortion law. Spectrum News, used frequently on this article, says the following in a article released on October 14 "Despite being anti-abortion, the Long Island congressman told Capital Tonight that he will not roll back the abortion law that New York passed in 2019, which codified Roe into state law." Here is the link to that article. This should be included in the Abortion section under political positions. GeorgeBailey (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, this interview is from Spectrum News' public affairs show Capital Tonight, and is not vetted in the same way a news story is. Remember WP:NOTEVERYTHING says Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight. Since Zeldin is just repeating campaign talking points, and there's no evidence of original reporting, I see no reason to include this at all. BlueboyLINY (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could note his statements about abortion in a policy position section, but should not give too much weight to it beyond that. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to find another source for this statement, and only found three, none of them reliable. They are: WP:NEWSMAX which is deprecated; WP:NYPOST which is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics; and WABC radio, which hasn't had a news department since before its current owner John Catsimatidis took over the station, and currently uses stringers on their website, so not a good WP:RELIABLE source either. BlueboyLINY (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that. I also saw Newsmax and NYPost and I know those are on the no-no list. I'll wait for something better! GeorgeBailey (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a campaign site

[edit]

@GeorgeBailey: Just a friendly reminder of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Remember Wikipedia is not a campaign site, and repeatedly adding campaign talking points is WP:DISRUPTIVE, so please don't waste yours or other editors time. It's best to discuss on the talk page before adding questionable statements. - BlueboyLINY (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added a crime section

[edit]

Feel free to tweak or add anything. The "bail reform" section is too specific and can be seen as a campaign talking point. GeorgeBailey (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC) @BlueboyLINY: @BlueboyLINY: Since you didn't see this. GeorgeBailey (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC) Blueboy, I invite you to add a crime section with any recent information you don't find "undue".GeorgeBailey (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you're trying to add two things there. (1) Zeldin wants to declare a "state of emergency" on crime. I guess that can be relevant to add, but what exactly does that mean? It gives him authority to suspend laws? (2) Zeldin criticizing the response to antisemitism and anti-Asian attacks, all I see is a politician attacking his opponent without any specifics. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueboyLINY: If nothing else, the "bail reform" should be replaced with "crime". Bail reform is a crime issue. The state of emergency is relevant to add as a political position on crime. For (2), attacking those who commit hate crimes is a political position as well. Whatever we do, the crime section should expand beyond bail reform. GeorgeBailey (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bail reform was a bill voted on in the state legislature, that issue and Zeldin's comments regarding it need to stay. If you want to add a crime section go right ahead, however keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a campaign site. That being said you should not continue adding campaign talking points instead of Zeldin's accomplishments. "Zeldin says he will..." means nothing here, as @Muboshgu: stated "all I see is a politician attacking his opponent without any specifics". Post his voting record on crime, i.e. ‘Tough-on-Crime’ Rep. Lee Zeldin Didn’t Vote on Police Bills - BlueboyLINY (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2023

[edit]
206.246.7.180 (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Former representative Lee Zeldin's wife Diana is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, while in the Personal Life section, it says his wife is Mormon. I know they are the same thing, but this edit I am requesting is what his wife's church prefers to be called.

 Not done: Although this is not incorrect, this should at the very least wait until there is a consensus to move the article Mormons to an alternate title. Tollens (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number 1 Public Health Problem. Increasing drug overdose deaths.

[edit]

What is his position? 70.15.51.158 (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lee_Zeldin&oldid=1260892859"