Talk:Lee Zeldin/Archive 1

Untitled
I am authorized by Lee Zeldin to create this page and am not in violation of any trademarks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralberty (talk • contribs)

Re-Edit for Lee Zeldin Page
Please note that I have started a new entry for this page that will hopefully meet your guidelines.

Ralberty (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Gotta rework this
I don't wanna come in here and erase everything you've done, but this is an encyclopedia article. It can't sound like a campaign ad or like a candidate's website bio or anything. I wouldn't be surprised if another editor came in here and cleaned house. -- Fifty7 (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

part of this is written in the first person... how is this still up? - zach —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.86.113 (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

2010 protesters and confederate flag
The following section has been controversial : "During a “Women for Foley” rally, a group of Zeldin supporters appeared, with one waving the Confederate battle flag, a symbol of division and hatred, while others waved Gadsden flags and held up pro-Zeldin and pro-Carl Paladino signs. Protesters reportedly made obscene gestures at women entering the rally while yelling anti-Brian Foley and anti-Andrew Cuomo rhetoric.[4][5] Zeldin denounced attempts by Brian Foley to link these protesters to his campaign.[4]"

In my opinion this section should not be in the article. The idea that because one alleged supporter was waving a confederate flag, this is somehow relevant to Lee Zeldin is ridiculous. However, this kept being reinserted, so I tried to at least make it more neutral. There is a video of the event, so it can be referenced. (I don't think this event was notable though, it didn't receive any media attention except for maybe one blog post). There was a person flying a confederate flag, and the confederate flag is a symbol of division and hatred. The report about obscene gestures hasn't been substantiated. Zeldin said (in the video) "it's not true". Personally I think it's ridiculous to pin blame on Zeldin for fringe right wingers he has no control over. Danski14(talk) 17:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've removed the content. The YouTube video may show the incident, but it doesn't prove that any major media outlet found it notable enough to report upon. The other reference was a biased press release. There's no proof in these references that Zeldin, the subject of this article, was present or had any knowledge of this incident. It would be WP:UNDUE and a violation of WP:BLP to include.Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The section was reinserted again. I have decided maybe it is best to leave it in. It is important to include that there are no known associations between the protestors and the Zeldin campaign, nor is there any knowledge the campaign had knowledge of their actions. The protestors did receive some media attention (a brief "flap" in the media) and it turns out that Zeldin's campaign did make a statement against the use of the flag and denouncing the actions of one of the protestors, so it is somewhat notable in that sense. I have added references to the following articles  Danski14(talk) 17:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Article changes
I've recently removed a substantial amount of poorly sourced and/or biased information from this article. Let's discuss the content on the talk page.


 * Re. saltwater fishing licenses: I replaced a press release citation with a Newsday reference. A newspaper report is almost always preferable and more neutral than a politician's own press release.


 * The article previously stated that Zeldin sponsored the MTA payroll tax. This was just wrong–he sponsored the repeal of the tax.


 * It's not noteworthy that Zeldin didn't take the Political Courage Test. The majority of candidates don't. It would only be noteworthy if there was an independent source saying that Zeldin not taking the test was noteworthy.


 * Similarly, not taking a Newsday survey is also not noteworthy here. Perhaps if he'd taken the survey his answers would be worthy of inclusion, but not taking a survey in the first place is not newsworthy.

Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: Please take part in the talk page discussion rather than continuing to make edits that do not have consensus. Here is a run-down of recent edits:


 * Deleting saltwater fishing vote with edit summary "deleted saltwater fishing vote, incorrect citation had nothing to do with vote:" The source used was a Newsday article that references Zeldin's work to repeal the saltwater fishing fee. Newsday is a major newspaper and certainly a reliable source. Information about the saltwater fishing fee is in the article.


 * Again it's been added that Zeldin sponsored the MTA Tax. He sponsored the repeal of the tax. Big difference. It's extremely misleading and factually inaccurate to say he sponsored the tax itself.


 * "Removed biased PTSD info to due to poorly sourced reference that reads like a campaign ad:" There are two newspaper sources here, so it's not poorly sourced. A newspaper article is directly quoted, not a "campaign ad."


 * "Poorly sourced & biased. This is an Editorial that erroneously misrepresents Zeldin a War Hero, he is not:" The citation here is the New York Post. As for "erroneously misrepresenting Zeldin as a War Hero," it simply says he's a war veteran. That doesn't mean "war hero."

Other material I already referenced above has been re-added without discussing it here first. Please discuss any future changes here first. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If you would kindly refer to your Revision as of 19:47, 25 June 2014, you will notice that it was your edit that changed it from "In June 2011, He Sponsored - S 5596 Revising The Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax ..." to "In June 2011, he sponsored the MTA payroll tax." BlueboyLI (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This is the version of the article before I made any edits . It said "In June 2011, He Sponsored - S 5596 Revising The Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax, AKA the MTA payroll tax." I initially cut out the name of the bill in an attempt to make the article more clear and readable, until I realized he'd sponsored the repeal, not the tax–which is why I made this edit. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I edited Congressman Zeldin's Wikipedia page with various facts regarding projects and bills in which he has undertaken. I used reliable local news sources to cite my added information. I also used congress.gov which is an unbiased and purely factual source. BlueBoyLI has reverted my edits multiple times in an unsubstantiated manner. I would appreciate further revert edits to discussed on here before my posts are taken down especially after I have appropriately cited my sources. RedBoyLI (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)RedBoyLI

How do my edits fail verification when I cited a source like congress.gov? This is clearly a factual source. How would I be able to add information that does not fail verification? RedBoyLI (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)RedBoyLI

DCCC
The reason why I undid this edit is because it attempts to quote from the inflammatory email that caused the brouhaha. Why would we quote directly from an email that has since been renounced? I say "attempts to quote," because there isn't a closing quotation mark, so it's impossible to see whether this is in fact a direct quote, and if so, where it ends. This leads to the appearance of bias. In addition, "The" is incorrectly capitalized prior to "Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee." I am also confused why the various recent sources I've added, all using the Wikipedia citation tool, have been reverted to bare URLs. Numerous grammatical irregularities have also been introduced to the article, including irregular and incorrect capitalization (for example, this sentence: "In March 2011 He Secured Repeal of the Saltwater Fishing License Fee.") What was there prior was grammatically correct, so it's making the article worse to revert to prior versions. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Interest Group Ratings
Interest group ratings should include a secondary source to indicate their significance or notability. Otherwise the article will become a coat rack for cherry picked ratings.CFredkin (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:50, 6 July 2014, added a secondary source (Time Warner Cable News) BlueboyLI (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The citation added is to nystateofpolitics.com, which is a blog and not a WP:reliable source.CFredkin (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It meets the standard for a secondary source WP:NEWSORG BlueboyLI (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The site calls itself a blog: "The STATE of POLITICS blog is a running statewide conversation about NY politics...".  According to WP:USERG: "Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer".CFredkin (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In addition, this edit removes well-sourced content from the Huffington Post.CFredkin (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

While this edit adds content from jpupdate.com, which is not a WP:reliable source.CFredkin (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Once again, this edit needs reliable, secondary source to indicate notability and accuracy. A blog site is not a WP:reliable source.CFredkin (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There are 2 reliable sources cited here, NY Daily News & Time Warner Cable News, these are not "self published" blogs. BlueboyLI (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC) see WP:NEWSBLOG BlueboyLI (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The only reference to Zeldin in The NY Daily News article quotes a letter from the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee. Not only is it irrelevant, but it doesn't even support the statement citing it in Zeldin's bio.


 * The New York State of Politics is a blog with no apparent editorial control and is WP:NOTRELIABLE. In addition, it also doesn't even mention the content citing it in Zeldin's bio.CFredkin (talk) 03:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Once again, there are 2 reliable sources cited here, NY Daily News & Time Warner Cable News, these are not "self published" blogs.WP:NEWSBLOG — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueboyLI (talk • contribs) 06:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Once again, not only are these not reliable sources for the reasons stated above, but they don't even support the statements you're citing them for in the article.CFredkin (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The article has been fully protected for a week
Following my request, this article is under full protection due to slow-motion edit-warring since early September. Please resolve the issues on the talkpage while the article is protected. If any edit-war erupts after the protection expires I will file individual reports at WP:3RRN. Remember, if the intention is to edit-war you may be blocked even if you don't break 3RR in 24 hours. in fact, longterm edit-warring is as bad, if not worse, as breaking 3RR in 24 hours and blocks are issued if a report is filed for longterm edit-warring. So, please talk, talk, and no war, war. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Confederate flag and district description
As I explaied to BlueboyLI on his talk page, I don't see how either the detailed description of the Congressional district, which is unreferenced, or the Confederate flag incident, whose sources include YouTube and a partisan press release, are relevant to Zeldin. The latter amounts to, "someone did something and claimed to support Zeldin, Zeldin distanced himself from that someone". That's hardly significant enough to dominate coverage of the New York Senate elections, and since Zeldin was neither present nor connected to that Someone in any way, the incident is utterly irrelevant to Zeldin himself. Covering it at length violates WP:UNDUE and arguably WP:BLP. Now, after I warned BlueboyLI about edit warring, an IP editor appeared to make those very same edits, still without an explanation of how they're relevant to Zeldin. I don't think we need assume that's a new contributor, and I'd like to remind BlueboyLI that continuing the edit war while logged out would be seen as sockpuppetry, also an issue BlueboyLI should already be familiar with, given that he did so before and was blocked for it. Huon (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good work, BlueboyLI kept reinserting it with the text that was highly biased against Zeldin, and he refused to discuss the matter here on this talk page. Danski14(talk) 18:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oath Keepers
I'm not sure we should include this content in the article: "In July 2015, Zeldin was among nine Republicans facing attacks for meeting with Oath Keepers an extremist conservative group."

The source, the New York Daily News, is a story about how the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is attacking Zeldin. It is standard partisan politics for Democrats to attack Republicans, and vice versa. Is this charge particularly notable?

If we keep it in, at the very least explain who he is "facing attacks" from (the DCCC). The description of Oath Keepers as an "extremist conservative group" does not seem neutral, either. According to who? Wikipedia's own article on the group describes it as "an American organization associated with the anti-government patriot movement." Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. Attacks by political opponents are not typically included in BLP's.CFredkin (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Iran Visa
I question the addition of what appears to be an election year political stunt. BlueboyLI (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok. On what policy grounds? It's an incident that's been well-covered in WP:RS. Champaign Supernova (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Lee Zeldin. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zeldinforcongress.com/uncategorized/edwalsh

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Comparing versions
I'm looking for feedback on which version other editors think is preferable. This diff compares the relevant differences:. I'm concerned that the second version is sloppy both grammatically and stylistically, but more importantly with regard to appropriately conforming to sources. This page has long come under flurries of edits by opponents of Zeldin, and it's important that we maintain neutrality. Feedback welcome, thanks. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've seen no defense of the second version, so I'm going to restore the prior version. Please discuss and build consensus at talk before reverting, thank you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * My edits have been reverted with no discussion . Clearly we have a case of editors disagreeing here, and it's important to discuss and come to a consensus on the talk page. That's not possible if one editor in a dispute continually reverts while refusing to engage at talk. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Since I've heard nothing from the other editor involved here, I am going to take this to WP:3O to get a third opinion. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Patch article submitted by Zeldin
I would like feedback from other editors regarding the use of submitted articles to newspapers, by political candidates or their press teams, as a reliable source WP:RS. Particularly this article from the Sayville-Bayport Patch How is this considered a reliable source WP:RS keeping a neutral point of view WP:NPOV? BlueboyLI (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The article actually has a byline-Priscila Korb--and thus does not appear to be written or submitted by Lee Zeldin. It's fine if you want to remove this source, however, as there are ample sources that verify the information that this source is being used to verify (that Zeldin supported a 2% property tax cap). Take your pick: NY State of Politics, Epoch Times, American Thinker, Riverhead Local, Vote Smart voting record on legislation. He clearly supported and voted for the property tax legislation. Given that you at one time added The Onion (!) as a reference in this article, I find your concern about the sourcing here rather disingenuous. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we all agreed that the source can be removed (it's not in the article now, anyway), since the source includes the words Submitted by Lee Zeldin. Yes, there is a byline, but it's for someone who wrote an intro - "Lee Zeldin is ... ". The actual content of the article is a letter submitted by Lee Zeldin. That absolute fails WP:RS; it's unacceptable to use the article as a standard source. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

"Marriage Equality" vs. "LGBTQ policy"
This section isn't just about marriage. It's also about general civil rights, i.e. the First Amendment Defense Act. "Marriage Equality" is too narrow of a title. "LGBTQ policy" reflects the content of the section, which is about more than just marriage. "LGBTQ policy" or better yet, just "Civil rights" would be better titles. Champaign Supernova (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The article is specifically about marriage equality, it does not discuss any other civil rights or LGBTQ issues. FADA is in direct response to Obergefell v. Hodges and therefore falls under the "Marriage Equality" banner. BlueboyLI (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure which article you are referring to as there are numerous citations in the relevant subsection of the article, but the legislation isn't just about marriage, it's about whether or not people can refuse service to LGBT people. It's generally about the civil rights of LGBT people, whether or not they choose to get married. So "marriage equality" doesn't make much sense here--"marriage rights" or "marriage policy" would be better than that, but I still think "gay rights" or "LGBTQ policy" would be better too. Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I've changed it from "marriage equality" to "same-sex marriage." The latter is a more neutral and encyclopedic term, not to mention the title of Wikipedia's article on the subject. Check out Marriage equality (disambiguation). It says "Marriage equality is the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, as it is referred to by its proponents." We shouldn't be using the terminology of proponents or opponents of anything, but simply neutral, encyclopedic language. Champaign Supernova (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

2017 Media Appearances
CNN New Day January 2, 2017 Wikipietime (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lee Zeldin. 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/20120615060350/http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/new-york/state-legislature to http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/new-york/state-legislature

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Lee Zeldin's staff members are making unproductive edits to this page
I'd like to note that the account that recently made a number of edits, "Patricia bober", shares the name of an intern at Lee Zeldin's office. While part of her edits were productive, other parts were not (e.g. removal of Zeldin's position on gay marriage, badly tweaking the language on his Planned Parenthood defunding). Shortly after I reverted her edits, another account (created today), "Jasonkenny", restored her edits and made some additional edits. There are strong reasons to suspect that this account also has a close connection to the subject matter of the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Strongly doubt problem is limited to Zeldin's staff

 * @Snooganssnoogans -- while you may be correct in your deductions above, I would point out that every politician, Democrat and Republican and Independent, has partisans who edit their pages, many with Washington DC IP addresses.


 * I, frankly, am concerned for the integrity of every article of every incumbent member of the US Congress, particularly with the off-year elections in 2018, which, while it might seem a long way off, is not. This is why news media are already introducing news stories about specific races, overall predictions, and trying to suss which party will control the US Senate and/or the US House of Representatives. In other words, I don't think what is happening on Zeldin's page is unique or exceptional.


 * I can only hope, since 535 seats are too many even for me to monitor, considering I have 3000+ articles on my watchlist already, that somehow order and integrity will prevail and Wikipedia's reputatation will not be besmirched. Quis separabit?  23:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Steve Bannon support
Wolf Blitzer reported Bannon appearing at campaign ralley which Zeldin supports. Nov 27 2017 CNN --Wikipietime (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But not at a Zeldin rally itself. Not relevant to the article IMHO. Danski14(talk) 18:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Concerning edits
I'm concerned by edits both recent and in the past of BlueboyLI, as I've started to detail here. And looking back, I see the most recent edits are not the only concerning ones. User:All Hallow's Wraith made an addition with an RS ref and an edit summary, see here, and BlueboyLI also deleted that for no good reason at all. With the false edit summary "reverted unexplained edit". Please explain how this is a good faith deletion, and a good faith edit summary. --2604:2000:E010:1100:C811:4A13:363E:5639 (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I have reverted edits that were done with no explanation. Remember, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a campaign website. If you wish to continue editing please discuss here before doing so. Please familiarize your self with Reliable sources as many of your edits cite only votesmart. BlueboyLI (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * As I wrote to you on your talkpage (you didn't respond), BlueboyLI, you deleted edits because they were made by an IP. They were indicated as both "add" where there was RS material supported text added. And Ref additions. You incorrectly said the reason made for them was not indicated. Plus, they were self-evident. That they were made by an IP is not relevant. At all. That is not reason to delete proper edits. Please don't. --2604:2000:E010:1100:C811:4A13:363E:5639 (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I now see that you, in addition, made a number of clearly improper deletions and reverts to the same article just a little earlier. Here. This is replete with improper editing on your part. You deleted material that was properly supported with RSs. You reverted inlines that were proper - and did not violate wp:overlink as you improperly claimed. You have to remember that children read this, and that it is proper to link "property tax" and FBI and the like. Not everyone knows what they are. And we have WP articles. As to where William Floyd is -- look at the RS, and look at the Wikipedia article while you are at it. Don't make a revert of an edit that is supported by an RS because you "know" what the truth is, and it differs. That is not allowed. And don't delete material from the lede that in fact - contrary to your incorrect assertion - does belong in the lede, per wp:lede. I'm also confused how you "know" what the person's correct name is, and make a deletion based on your knowledge. Without an RS ref.


 * All in all, I am troubled by your edits. If this continues, let's bring in an admin to review what you've been doing and take action. 2604:2000:E010:1100:C811:4A13:363E:5639 (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * BlueboyLI -- What edits had "no explanation?" What edit had no edit summary?


 * Further, this edit is not appropriate. You deleted a paragraph from the lede that was appropriate. Of course a lede by its very nature is rednundant. I already pointed you to wp:lede on your talk page. You are again ignoring it.  A lede is a summary of the most important contents of the text below it. Here, the article is a bio. You deleted the part of the lede that covered concisely the subject's life before his most recent job. That is not appropriate -- and totally inappropriate under the assertion that the basis for your deletion is that it is "redundant." You are an experienced editor, who has been pointed to wp:lede -- I'm puzzled by your editing.


 * Further, in this edit you deleted a host of material that was reliably sourced. Please explain your deletions.


 * There, you also deleted the fact that the father was an investigator, along with the source. You wrote: "A company website is not a reliable source." Please point me to where in our rules that is stated. Here, a company has a bio on the man that merely supports that he is a professional investigator. The statement is not unduly self-serving, and there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. Why would you find that contentious? Why would you delete it? And have you noticed the other supporting refs available here and here and here? What is your basis? I've added a NYT ref - but your deletion was unwarranted.


 * Also in the above edit, what was your basis for deleting titles of refs, that refserve had supplied, such as " " for example?


 * What was your basis for deleting "His stepmother is retired probation officer Carol Taub Zeldin. "?


 * What was your basis for deleting the RS-supported "His grandfather was a founder of the Conservative synagogue Farmingdale Jewish Center, which Zeldin's family often attended along with the B’nai Israel Reform Temple of Oakdale, Long Island, New York, where he celebrated his bar mitzvah. His uncle Bernie helped establish the Jewish Center of the Hamptons in 1959. "


 * Furthermore, you just made this deletion. In it, you deleted the bolded ref here. "In 2016, he spoke in support of the anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) legislation that passed the New York State Senate. " Your explanation?  "removed press release per WP:RS" But there is nothing in RS that says that a statement such as this - by a politician on his view as to legislation - cannot be supported by the candidates press release. That's actually absurd. You did it again here -- amazingly!  Your reason in your edit summary? You wrote: "removed citation per WP:RS" It starts to shake our assumption of good faith. Point me to the part of wp:RS that states that, please.


 * You deleted Votesmart as a ref repeatedly -- saying it was not a reliable source. But in December 2018 the question was posed at the RSN. And the editor concluded it was an RS. See input from User:Zigzig20s  here.


 * Also here, you deleted a press release that was for what it was used a totally acceptable RS. Point me to what in wp:RS says this would be an inappropriate RS for the purpose used.


 * You also deleted interest group ratings, such as here of the National Association of Police Organizations and here the ratings of the American Library Association and the National Education Association and the Defenders of Wildlife and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the National Rifle Association and Planned Parenthood and the National Right to Life Committee -- where the interest groups have Wikipedia articles. That the interest group has a Wikipedia article, it is obviously a notable group. But you deleted their ratings on the basis that there is no indication of significance or notability. Please point to the basis for that, where the group is clearly notable. Plus - your whole premise was not true. As the sources were not the interest groups themselves! That's what a primary source is. But a Secondary Source! In each case.


 * Here, you deleted an RS ref. Your reason, as reflected in your edit summary? "removed vote smart citation per WP:RS". But that was untrue. The ref was not a "vote smart" ref (even though that would have been fine, as discussed above). It was a clearly RS article.


 * Here, you deleted material asserting without basis that it lacked RS support. That is not true. I supported RS support for the fact that he is an only son. A NYT article further supporting that his father is a private investigator. And a Martindale Hubbell source for the year he was admitted to the NY bar. Please detail why you do not believe those sources are RS.


 * Your editing is very disruptive - and I note this goes back to at least your earlier deletion in November of an image added by User:Wildcursive. With no proper reason on your part for your deletion. See here. You gave as your reason that the addition of the image was "unexplained." Are you serious? Because that does not sound serious - it is an image of the subject that relates to the paragraph in question. And your earlier deletion of material added by User:All Hallow's Wraith, with proper edit summary, saying he had not supplied a reason. Again with no coherent proper reason on your part. You leave edit summaries that are completely baseless for your deletions. You say that things (the Jewish Week?) are not RSs, without basis. You say people haven't left a reason for their RS-supported addition, when they have. User:Danski14 has expressed similar concerns. I tried leaving you edit summaries, writing on your talk page and writing on this talk page to you - you just continue. And you make baseless personal accusations (I've been adding in pro and con NPOV information filling out his bio, not one-sided information, anybody who looks at my edits can see that-you just keep on deleting information you do not like, on baseless edit summaries). If this continues, we really need to involve an admin.

--2604:2000:E010:1100:C582:82D0:365A:7299 (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes I agree we need an administrator involved, also it would be helpful if you came out from behind your Hunter College IP address and created a user name, or are you using an ip to act as a sockpuppet? BlueboyLI (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Oshwah or User:Bbb23 or User:Huon - can one of you perhaps review the above and help out? I'm frustrated. I've tried talking to him at length, but all this editor does is what I have described above. Looking about over article history, it looks as though he's just run off the article those editors where he has tenaciously deleted their work - I would hope there would be an end to this. Thanks. 2604:2000:E010:1100:C582:82D0:365A:7299 (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Both of you have been edit-warring. I've fully protected the article for one week. If you resume the edit war after the week has elapsed, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually Bbb23, rather than revert, and to avoid edit warring, I've brought almost all of my concerns to this talk page (and his talk page), though at times I did add new refs where there was a dispute over refs. Leaving the article in the form I disagreed with - instead of reverting, listing above all the reasons I disagree. That's not the way the article should I think read at the end of the day, for all the reasons I've listed. But I do disagree that I edit-warred - take a look, instead of doing that I listed my complaints (or tried to address his voiced concerns where there was any substance). 2604:2000:E010:1100:C582:82D0:365A:7299 (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

COI tag
There's a COI tag on the article, which I removed after looking over the article and not noticing any glaring issues. The tag was restored by who requested a discussion here. Can you let me know why you feel the tag is warranted, and which content you think needs to be addressed? Marquardtika (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * With no specific concerns expressed here in a week, I'm going to go ahead and remove the tag. Marquardtika (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

"Controversial positions" section
I have removed the following content in a section titled "Controversial positions" for being WP:UNDUE. We need to avoid having a WP:CSECTION per WP:NPOV. The content was "In July 2015 Zeldin was among nine Republicans who faced criticism after meeting with Oath Keepers, a group of retired military, police, and fire department employees. The New York Daily News reported that "the chapter's website includes postings by a member embracing a film that claims the December 2012 Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax, and calling President Obama a 'Muslim/Extremist.'" The source is the Daily News. I moved this content to a section titled "Other", where the text now reads "In July 2015, Zeldin was among nine Republicans who faced Democratic attacks after addressing the Long Island chapter of Oath Keepers, a group of retired military, police, and fire department employees." Looking at the available sourcing, the longer version accords WP:UNDUE weight to what looks to be a pretty insignificant event. Per the source, he spoke to the group, then the DCCC put out an attack ad. Pretty standard political stuff. The source very clearly says he faced "Democratic attacks." This isn't a policy position, it was an appearance at an event. It probably shouldn't be in the article at all because there isn't evidence of enduring encyclopedic notability, but the version I wrote adheres better to the sourcing and is pithier and more neutral. Marquardtika (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I removed the material entirely. If the best source we got is the NY Daily News (i.e., a tabloid) then it's completely UNUDE. Another editor attempted to restore the edit back into a controversy section. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , In a response to this, please be aware that the age of a source does not mean it's reliable. See, for example, The New York Post--founded in 1801. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the "Southampton Press" article--which has no author/byline--says nothing about Zeldin's meeting with the OathKeepers. The entire article is about how Zeldin endorsed Trey Gowdy. Then, at the very end, it quotes a member of the DCCC attacking Zeldin for allegedly "cozy[ing] up to fringe Republicans–whether Gowdy, the Oath Keepers, or even Donald Trump — [Zeldin] only makes it increasingly clear that he is out of step with Long Islanders”. The article has nothing to do with the meeting or speech. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit war
I'm not sure why, but you two have reverted each other many times over the last few days. You both need to stop reverting immediately because this is disruptive (it looks like you are both already aware of our edit warring policy). Instead, please discuss with each other about the changes here on this talk page, or alternatively, try to find some other article to edit for the time being. Continuing to edit war may lead to blocks. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note to BlueboyLINY in particular, you seem to be reverting Wukai's edits without any explanation at all in the edit summary. This is inappropriate unless Wukai's edits are obviously vandalism, which is not the case. Please explain why you disagree with the edits. Mz7 (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it doesn't look like your advice was heeded here and both parties are continuing to edit war without discussing anything here. Honestly the edit warred content seems quite trivial so I don't really get it. But anyway...should the page be protected for the time being? Marquardtika (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for letting me know. I've partially blocked both editors for 31 hours. Mz7 (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I've rarely seen such a pointless and infantile edit war. If they return to edit-warring without gaining consensus on this talk page, they should both be blocked again. Softlavender (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * /, you need to get consensus on this talkpage for your edits to the status quo ante before reverting, per WP:BRD. If you continue to make these edits without consensus, I will report you to WP:ANEW for your ridiculous longterm edit-war which you continued even after already being blocked from the article for the same edit war. Softlavender (talk)
 * This is so ridiculous. Neither of them have edited this talk page, except Wukai to pedantically copyedit Softlavender's comment in violation of WP:TPO . I have sanctioned both Wukai and BlueboyLINY under WP:ACDS such that they are required to have prior affirmative talk page consensus before making any further edits to this page for the next three months. Mz7 (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Is there any way to get these restrictions reinstated? has, once again, initiated an edit war and simply refuses to engage on the TP. Looks like he was also edit-warring on WMBQ-CD and on WRNN-TV. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's unfortunate. I think throwing sanctions back on at this point would be premature—let's see if they respond to your latest talk page message. Mz7 (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , No problem. Normally, I would give an editor a decent amount of time to respond, but considering the fact that he has never once utilized the TP, I don't expect a response anytime soon. Let's give him a week. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I have not violated the 3 revert rule, my edits are all in good faith. I simply restored material that's been on the page since 2015 that you deleted without discussion. BlueboyLINY (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , You can still be edit warring without breaking 3RR. And I did discuss (see the topic above). Marquardtika had previously stated that the material shouldn't be in the article and I agree with them. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, since I see no prior consensus, the WP:ONUS is on you to establish that the material belongs in the article. In fact, two other users have also said that the material should be removed. There is a clear consensus that the material should be excluded from the article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The users you refer to, Champaign Supernova and CFredkin have been indefinitely blocked from editing due to WP:BADSOCK. Seeing as you've only been editing less than six months, yet you act as if your so familiar with wikipedia policy, makes your account highly suspect: exhibit A, exhibit B, exhibit C, exhibit D. BlueboyLINY (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , It's unfortunate those two users turned up to be socks--they brought up some good points. Oh, so now you're accusing me of being a sock? Your "evidence" is, frankly, nonexistent. Yes, it's true one particular user has accused me of being a sock based on no evidence (just like you). I don't see how having familiarity with certain policies (such as WP:BLP, WP:RS or whatnot) makes someone a "sock." Our policies and guidelines are written in plain English.
 * If you have any actual evidence that I'm socking, I urge you to file a report @ WP:SPI--I'll even self-endorse a CU. But obviously you lack any evidence, so your accusations are simply WP: ASPERSIONS. YOU should be the last one to make such accusations, considering the fact you never formally disclosed your previous account, where you purposely evaded your block for edit-warring on THIS very page.
 * FWIW, your "Exhibit D" proved me right. The user who initiated the AE complaint did turn out to be a sock. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have once again removed the content. Both Marquardtika and I have made policy-based reasons why the material should be removed. The sole editor who wishes to retain the material has provided no policy-based reasons for keeping it. Per WP:BLPUNDEL & WP:NOCON, the editor would need a clear, affirmative consensus to reinstate the material. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Zeldin's Trump loyalism should be in the lead
It summarizes the largest section of the article and informs readers about what kind of politician this is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It is somewhat notable, but the lead? Zeldin should be judged as an individual, and the article should be reflective of him and his policies, not of his allies and theirs. Then again, you wrote this on January 7th and your profile contains a lot of anti-Trump stuff, so maybe this was a charged comment. With the 2022 governor's race ahead of us in New York, and with Trump out of office, the Lee Zeldin page should reflect him solely. -Cir

"The lawsuit repeated false, disproven, and unsubstantiated accusations about fraud."
The editor CharlesShirley removed reliably sourced content about Zeldin supporting a lawsuit that made false claims of fraud in the 2020 election. The content in question is sourced to RS that specifically mention Zeldin and how he supported a lawsuit that made false claims of fraud in the 2020 election. When the editor claims the content has nothing to do with Zeldin, the editor is lying. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's important to assume good faith! But that said, I would also vote to restore to the lead Zeldin's vote to object to certifying the 2020 election results. I would also vote to add to the description of Zeldin's vote the context that it happened just hours after the storming of the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters who professed to believe the spurious voter-fraud allegations. — Rider1819 (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup Edit
Good Morning, Evening, or Afternoon! I recently made a general cleanup edit that covered multiple sections of this article that was reverted by a familiar user. I realized I should explain my thinking. First, the tenure section for the house of representatives section previously had an expansion sticker added on. Second, I figured the second paragraph of the intro lead fit better in the tenure section, for a couple of reasons. 1. Zeldin's many statements during the first impeachment hearings were notable and should be noted in the tenure section, along with objecting to certify two states. 2. Allyship should not be noted in a short lead. The lead should focus on the individual, especially a lead as short as this. 3. The Donald Trump presidency is over. ​What should be notable in the lead is who he is, the place he represents, and other positions held or aspired.

I'm also trying to strike a neutral tone in my edits and I aim to make this article more neutral in general. I am going to change the edit back to what is was, because I did cover multiple sections including grammar, but If a consensus comes against me, please change back just the individual part the consensus comes to and not the entire edit. Thank you! Capisred (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Just realized I forget an edit summary for my revision! I'll get it eventually! Thank you all for your help. The kinds words and help are always appreciated. Capisred (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The content removed from the lead needs to stay. Per this discussion. BlueboyLINY (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * No consensus was reached, and there was no support for the claim being made. That discussion was started on January 7th when emotions were high. I completely agree with the claim of "Zeldin should be judged as an individual, and the article should be reflective of him and his policies, not of his allies". I would like to get a third user in here to give their take! But I don't believe the linked discussion is a discussion at all, it is an 18 word statement with only one response that argues against that statement. Capisred (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Here. BlueboyLINY (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The "discussion" you linked it what I was referencing. Again, No consensus was reached, and there was no support for the claim being made. Capisred (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

support of apartheid in Palestine
As Zeldin attacks Amnesty International for their report his comments appear to be based on belief as opposed to facts. Please discuss and don't just flame or delete. HuttonIT (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)