Talk:Leonard Lance/Archive 1

BLP & New Jersey Opinion source
We currently have, in the lead section only, article text: He has been a loyal and vocal supporter of president Donald Trump. (emphasis added) sourced to an NJ.com editorial. The information in that source relating to support for Trump is: Here's what Lance says now: "While no one would confuse my personality with his, Donald Trump will have my enthusiastic support for President.". NJ.com, in turn, sources this to Observer, whose text is: “I have always supported the Republican nominee for President of the United States dating back to my first vote for Richard M. Nixon in 1972,” Lance said in a statement. “While no one would confuse my personality with his, Donald Trump will have my enthusiastic support for President against Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.” It is difficult to reconcile this statement (essentially, "I will support Trump because I have always supported the Republican candidate") with loyal and vocal, neither of which adjectives appear in either of these two sources. Looking more broadly it is difficult to reconcile loyal and vocal with other sources which describe Lance as critical of Trump's 2005 comments, and his support as "reluctant" and "lukewarm".. While I realise that there has been an edit war over this content previously, it does not appear to be well sourced, and per WP:BLPDELETE, I will remove these pending further discussion and formation of a consensus. for comment. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither is "and is one of his enthusiastic supporters" in the sources; it's an act of original research to interpret an incompletely quoted comment in the source. It is also not a neutral statement based on the weight in all reliable sources. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 16:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok to remove "loyal and vocal supporter" but Lance said in his own words, quoted by the major newspaper in New Jersey, the Star-Ledger, that he was an "enthusiastic supporter" of Trump. Lance said that publicly. The other "sources" you are listing, a local paper (not a valid source) and Lance's own website, are really irrelevant. If Lance is not an enthusiastic supporter of Trump, he wouldn't have said that he was. Case closed. Removing those two words sure looks like a Lance staffer trying to do a PR job for his boss.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The sources quote Lance as saying: “I have always supported the Republican nominee for President of the United States dating back to my first vote for Richard M. Nixon in 1972,” ... “While no one would confuse my personality with his, Donald Trump will have my enthusiastic support for President against Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.” It does not say that Lance is an enthusiastic supporter; to say so is an original interpretation of the quote. It is not supported by the sources, and was removed under WP:BLPDELETE; to restore it requires consensus per WP:BLPRESTORE; which is not present. Suggest either an RfC or a discussion at WP:BLPN would be the next step. As for the accusations: Please take your aspersions elsewhere. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Discussion opened at WP:BLPN. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Obviously you're edit-warring about this. I don't edit war. But clearly Lance described himself as an enthusiastic supporter of Trump. What's the big deal? Lance said it. Not a BLP issue by any means since we're talking about a public politician here. Maybe it's time to bring your POV-pushing up to the administrators noticeboard.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not what either the Star Ledger or the source they use, Observer (which has a fuller, and more qualified statement), quotes the article subject as saying; it's an original interpretation of the subject's statements. I have made a removal under WP:BLPDELETE, and fully explained that removal on the Talk page. That is not editwarring. Reinserting material removed under WP:BLPDELETE, without consensus, is, however, against policy. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC) How about we wait and see what other editors thoughts are? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * What Lance said was that Donald Trump will have my enthusiastic support for President. It seems entirely fair to say this in the first paragraph. If you feel that the entire quote has to be in the lead, that seems fair enough too. That said, it seems clear to me that this was a weasel statement -- he didn't want to say he wouldn't support Trump, even though, to my personal knowledge, he's been a strong and principled supporter of civility in politics. At least up to this summer when he decided to support Trump.  However, my inferences concerning Lance's meaning are clearly original research -- the article can't treat it as a weasel statement without a source. He said what he said. So the only thing in accordance with wikipedia policy is to quote Lance directly. Anything else interprets his carefully-spun words.Ngriffeth (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed; let's stick with Lance's own words.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "has said he's an enthusiastic supporter" are not the subjects own words. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I think the full quote is required to give the context of the support, and the qualifications around it. I am also, however, struggling to see why we would call out the endorsement of one Presidential candidate when the subject has endorsed many candidates across multiple elections. Seems undue; particularly for the lead. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Come on. Lance said he's an enthusiastic supporter of Trump. Lance said it. Quoted in a reliable source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC) That said, I have no problem with putting the full quote in if you wish.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC) And yes, it belongs in the lede -- that's perhaps the only thing notable about Lance at present, not all the junk in the article about his days in the state legislature or sponsorship of bills that never went anywhere -- just that Lance is a Trump supporter; of course it belongs in the lede paragraph.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * What text in what source? The Observer says “I have always supported the Republican nominee for President of the United States dating back to my first vote for Richard M. Nixon in 1972,” Lance said in a statement. “While no one would confuse my personality with his, Donald Trump will have my enthusiastic support for President against Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.” That is categorically different from "I am an enthusiastic supporter of Donald Trump". Firstly, the support is in the context of the 2016 Presidential election, not beyond that. Secondly, the support is in the context of Trump as the Republican candidate, not as an individual. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll agree to put the entire quote in the lede as you suggest.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do not misrepresent my words. If, and only if, the quote is included, it should be the full quote, from the Observer. Inclusion of such in the lead is, however, WP:UNDUE in the context of documenting this individual's entire life. The words above that's perhaps the only thing notable about Lance at present -- just that Lance is a Trump supporter, and the general tenor of comment and editing, give the appearance of an agenda of bias w.r.t the subject of this article; it would perhaps be better if editing were left to more detached, disinterested, editors. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm nonpartisan. You, removing Lance's own words, that's partisan OR.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I refer editors to my previous statements which demonstrate that the text removed was not the article subjects own words; and also note that original research is about what is included, not what is excluded, and that it is not original research to confirm that a source directly supports the text for which it is used as a reference. There is no consensus for the inclusion of the text that has been restored; please self-revert. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

More dubious sources
The National Health Council source here which you added is not a reliable source -- no byline, no editors. Neither is the this one -- who wrote it, Lance himself (look at the bottom). Much of this article is unsourced or poorly sourced and so may be in need of a major overhaul.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've already removed the National Health Council source, and had not noticed the author on the Drug Discovery & Development Mag; concur with removal. There's an NJ.com article which also discusses the Act. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I trimmed some of the more florid language from that section, and brought some other wording in line with the sources, but we'll need ot go back and check everything verifies with the latest source. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes steps in the right direction, but stepping back, and looking at the big picture, is this: Lance is a rank-and-file obey-the-boss group-minded Trump-supporting Republican, and this article is trying to make out that he's some kind of innovative legislator, a trailblazer. So a revamp, to be fair and neutral, would start with valid sources, not Lance's website, not Republican media outlets, and work from there.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The "Patch.com" source appears to "404". Could you check the URL and adjust as necessary? I'm also not sure that it's a RS; while there are some quality journalists on staff, they site appears to be, at least in part, user generated. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Checked link to Patch -- works for me. It's by the Patch staff, not user-generated content.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Confirm the issue now resolved for me as well. Must have been something transitory. Thank you for checking. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Too many 2017 details: Opening paragraph
There seems to be way too many details about his recent actions in the 2017 legislative session in the opening paragraph. In my opinion, most should be spread out accordingly in the section "TENURE" below. Socrates Burrito (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The idea of a lede paragraph is to summarize the main points about a subject -- and the main points today are his positions, particularly regarding Trump and the GOP and healthcare -- that's what readers are wanting to know, and some of these points are in the lede paragraph. Burying this information in an already length article (with much irrelevant information) is like hiding it. If anything, there should be a second paragraph in the lede, essentially clarifying Lance's positions, summarizing them, with the details perhaps in the body of the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Controversies?
I'm pretty new here but I'm struggling with understanding the content listed n Lance's "controversies." Being investigated and cleared for the Azerbakin trip is definitely worth discussing. However I do not see why the following is listed as "controversies":

In January 2017, several thousand protesters, mostly women, marched to Lance's office in Westfield, New Jersey as part of the 2017 Women's March to protest GOP policies and advocate for women’s rights, human rights, LGBTQ, climate change, gun control, and other issues.[73][74] In Watchung in 2017, citizens groups opposed to the policies of Donald Trump vowed to hold representatives accountable, and specifically targeted Lance and senators Cory Booker and Robert Menendez accountable to the wishes of voters, not the president

This is not a controversy. It is political opponents demonstrated and opposing him. It's fine but it seems inappropriate to list as a lance controversy and intended to show bias.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leonard Lance. 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/20070210110150/http://region.princeton.edu/about_advisory_bio_54.html to http://region.princeton.edu/about_advisory_bio_54.html

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) 23:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Gun section under political position section
I removed a reaction to the 2017 Orlando night club shooting. The statement actually says that the subject didn't address gun control. Maybe add under a reactions section if really that notable. --Malerooster (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this was also WP:OR. The source doesn't say that he didn't address gun control--that is an original analysis or interpretation. The source is just a snippet of a press release he put out, and politicians' press releases about themselves don't tend to be particularly reliable or noteworthy. Marquardtika (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The source is the Washington Post, a credible secondary source; where they got their information from is not really important. It clearly state's Lance's position that he thought the Orlando massacre was ISIS-related -- which is a political position -- and it needs to belong in the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "...Rather than advocating gun control measures" is not in the source, and it's WP:OR. There is no consensus to include this content--even without the original research you've added to it--and I'd recommend ceasing to reinsert it as you're at WP:3RR. Marquardtika (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * @Tomwsulcer, clearly state's Lance's position that he thought the Orlando massacre was ISIS-related -- which is a political position -- and it needs to belong in the article, uh, no, it's a bone headed, jump to conclusion reaction. If its some widely covered, big deal, than MAYBE it belongs in the article, but not under Political positions section and there needs to be consensus for inclusion. --Malerooster (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)