DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Hakeem Jeffries

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Mother and Father of Hakeem Jeffries.

[edit]

It is normal in a reference article to give some information about the mother and father of the person the article is about - but the mother and father of Hakeem and Hassan Jeffries do not appear to be in the article. For example, why do the two brothers have Middle Eastern names? What did the mother and father do for a living? Were they interested in politics? There is nothing in the article. 2A02:C7C:E1BA:CE00:3C96:F628:D642:C90A (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If information does not exist in reliable sources about the mother and father, naturally this information would not be in the article. (P.S. the middle names "Sekou" and "Kwame" are not Middle Eastern, but are actually west and central African in origin) Imconfused3456 23:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a member of the Progressive Caucus

[edit]

The Caucus Memberships section is out of date. Jeffries is not listed on the CPC website anymore. 146.189.0.195 (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2025

[edit]

Jeffries is no longer a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. He is listed on the archived page (reference 114) but is not listed on the current page. Please remove his listed membership in the Caucus Membership section. 146.189.0.195 (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Please provide reliable sources for the edit. Warriorglance(talk to me) 14:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 114 is the source, just not the archived source: https://progressives.house.gov/caucus-members 146.189.0.195 (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity edits

[edit]

I made some edits, they were reverted without a reson by Dcpoliticaljunkie without a given edit reason. Suspecting vandalism, I reverted the large reversion of my edits. When pressed for a reason to revert, he referenced incorrect information about his baseball team membership. The reversion, in fact, added the misinformation about the baseball team, and the misinformation is still present in the article as I am writing this.

His reasoning for reversion was:

- No edit reason given

- Once again: Object to these edits. Please take to the talk page

- I have provided reasons. It includes irrelevant information while re-introducing incorrect info which I corrected (there is no Congressional Baseball Team, there is a Democratic team at the Congressional Game), and removes longstanding information. Take to talk.

I think you're engaging in WP:BADREVERT and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR at the moment, Dcpoliticaljunkie, and would appreciate it if you would give a substantial reason to wipe out my initial edits; and my re-editing where I split the edits by theme.

I don't mind if you disagreed with them, but WP:BRD and WP:MASSR both indicate you shouldn't revert for the reasons you did.


My proposed changes are:

- remove the state legislative comitee memberships - they aren't presented in a usefull way in the article.

- reword the introductory paragraph to political view to fall in line with articles like Elissa Slotkin, Henry Cuellar, and others, where the politicians relative position on the american political spectrum is indicated in the first sentence.

- add a mention about a recent current event, where Jeffries declined to endorse the Decmocratic cadidate for mayor of the city his congressional district is in

- add a mention about his relationship to Eric Adams, the current mayor of New York CompleteAnonymity (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa on the first edit summary - I did type a rationale and I'm not sure where it went.
I think listing the final state legislative committee is useful and encyclopedic. Removing old information and replacing it with news is problematic in that it slants the article towards recentism. I'm not against listing a relative position on the spectrum with reliable sourcing but that does not explain removing status-quo content which had reliable sourcing.
Jeffries regularly comments on NYC mayors. Picking and choosing one comment is editorializing, and a longer section on comments on local politics would be undue for a national party leader. He's probably endorsed/not endorsed basically every local candidate in NYC and they don't all deserve a section. Let's wait for input from other commentators and see what the community thinks. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think listing the final state legislative committee is useful and encyclopedic.
I don't know why you would think that if they are included without other information. It takes up a lot of space.
Removing old information and replacing it with news is problematic in that it slants the article towards recentism
I did not do this, please show where this was the case in the edits. The only information I removed from the article was on the comitee memberships. In my second edit I made this edit separately.
I'm not against listing a relative position on the spectrum with reliable sourcing but that does not explain removing status-quo content which had reliable sourcing.
Not all content is relevant in an introductory paragraph. Why mention the Congresional Black Caucus before his relative position on the political spectrum, when the next pargraph is about his membership of the caucus?
I'm not against listing a relative position on the spectrum with reliable sourcing but that does not explain removing status-quo content which had reliable sourcing.
I can't help but laugh, but you wrote the "status-quo content" with "reliable sourcing" in this article.
Reverting my individual edits all at once, including the ones that you said "I'm not against" because it changes something you wrote is clear WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. It's a WP:BADREVERT. Immediately reverting changes to content you wrote and forcing conversation on a talk page after threating me on my talk page with a bot is an attempt to WP:PULLRANK.
In good faith, I will take you at your word, and make only the edit to the political positioning paragraph. The rest we can leave here for discussion. CompleteAnonymity (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you removed the state legislative committee memberships. I continue to believe its inclusion adds encyclopedic value to the article but happy to table this and potentially revisit later.
I did some research into Jeffries' local endorsements and have compiled the following partial list:
  • 2009 comptroller and public advocate: endorses John Liu and Bill de Blasio[1] (as well as Thompson for mayor) [2]
  • 2009 council: endorses Jumaane Williams [3]
  • 2012 district leader: endorses Lincoln Restler [4]
  • 2012 assembly: endorses Walter Mosley [5]
  • 2013 mayoral primary: endorses Bill Thompson [6]
  • 2013 Brooklyn DA: endorses Ken Thompson [7]
  • 2013 public advocate: endorses James [8]
  • 2013 city council: endorses Christopher Banks [9]
  • 2014: Rubain Dorancy for State Senate, Latrice Walker for Assembly [10]
  • 2017 mayoral: endorses de Blasio
  • 2017 Brooklyn DA: endorses Eric Gonzalez [11]
  • 2017 council: endorses Laurie Cumbo [12]
  • 2017 council: involved in picking the speaker [13]
  • 2018 governor primary: endorses Cuomo/Hochul/James [14]
  • 2018 state senate: endorses Zellnor Myrie [15]
  • 2019 Queens DA: endorses Melinda Katz [16]
  • 2020 assembly: endorses Stefani Zinerman [17]
  • 2021 mayoral primary: endorsed Maya Wiley [18], Adams second [19]
  • 2021 council: endorses Crystal Hudson [20], Nikki Lucas [21]
  • 2022 assembly: endorses Grace Lee [22], Nikki Lucas [23]
  • 2022 state senate: endorses Kevin Parker [24], Angel Vasquez [25]
Including all of these endorsements (and any additional endorsements we find) would take over a significant portion of the page, be of limited encyclopedic value (WP:PROPORTION), and be an undue level of detail. Focusing just on the current mayor and current mayoral election would be an example of WP:RECENTISM. It is also of local interest rather than national or international, as we should focus on here. On the flip side, picking and choosing here to make a narrative would violate WP:NPOV.
Regarding status-quo content, I am a major contributor but it had since been edited and read by numerous other users. There's been some major revisions now though so I will try to go through them this week. Obviously, nobody owns this or any other article and our goal is to write a neutral and informative encyclopedia article.
On a general note, I would appreciate if you would assume good faith and maintain civility here instead of making accusations like WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. As I said before, my lack of edit summary was an oversight. And informational templates are not an attempt to "pull rank". Ironically, if doing so were considered so, worth noting you did the same. That said, let's not derail the article talk page further with this and focus our discussion on improving the article's content. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation for my edit:
  • Removed the nebulous sentence claiming "Democratic officials and political progressives criticized Jeffries for not doing enough to combat Trump". Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and MOS:QUOTEPOV, if we include something like this, we need to attribute it to the people who hold this point of view. The first citation (The Independent) only mentions criticism from Gov. Shapiro which was directed at Dems in Congress generally. Semafor notes protests by "local progressive protesters" in Chicago and Pramila confirming that he's under pressure from the left, but it also quotes Clyburn and Ilhan defending him -- hardly proof for Democratic officials and political progressives criticizing him. David Corn does criticize his leadership in Mother Jones but he is hardly a major figure enough to be referred to as "Democratic leaders and progressives" and it is undue to give his opinion so much weight.
  • The rumor about DSA "talking about" a primary against Jeffries and a few other members is clearly POV pushing. Jeffries is a national party leader. Some nobodies talking about a primary would not be relevant in an article for a run of the mill member, let alone this one. Interestingly, whoever added it did not also adde it to Torres, Nadler, Goldman, and Clarke's articles despite them also being named as potential DSA targets.
  • I re-added the citation for the work with Republicans "whenever possible, but we will also push back against extremism whenever necessary" which was removed (quotes always need to be cited per WP:BURDEN) while re-adding context including the Goodlatte which clearly provides reasonable context.
  • I've previously argued against including the FiveThirtyEight score but I left in place but I think it may be better to remove.
Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've previously argued against including the FiveThirtyEight score but I left in place but I think it may be better to remove.
Sounds good to me. CompleteAnonymity (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this edit link is to the edit you are intending to edit? CompleteAnonymity (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've fundamentally misunderstood something about wikipedia if you think that Wikipedia:AGF means that you should ignore when you bullied me and ddin't apologize for it, but rather decided to make counter accusations and ignore all of my questions about your exhibition of Wikipedia:OWNBEHAVIOR.
I did, and always do, assume good faith towards initial reversions, but you should know that assumption of good faith does not render me blind, and your continued reversion of my good faith edits on shallow (or non-existent) grounds causes you to fail my test of whether someone is operating towards me in good faith. If you want to continue to "monitor the edits" to this article, perhaps you should read it again first so you are familiar with its contents.
As to the endorsements, it's now become even more of a story. I would also argue that the other endorsements are irrelevant - Mayor of New York City is a major political post in the United States, and can't be compared in good faith to New York city council endorsements. As to the accusations of it being WP:RECENTISM, I direct you to this essay: WP:CRYRECENTISM -- adding a sentence on a major new story into the article can't be gate kept by the person who wrote the majority of the article - if it is, that is actuallyWikipedia:OWNBEHAVIOR. CompleteAnonymity (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better if we keep our discussion focused on the content. I'm not sure where you found CRYRECENTISM. I've never seen it before but looks like it's a niche essay written to argue for inclusion of the Nazi salute on Elon Musk's page - hardly equivalent to this. The only other discussion its been cited in is to argue to include Gulf of America in the introduction to Gulf of Mexico. I agree with much of the responses here. If this is, in fact, material that should be in the article, we can wait to determine how much weight is due to it depending on its lasting coverage. RECENTISM is the far more widely accepted.
Regarding the other stuff, please take a look at WP:ASPERSIONS. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Task Force & Rising Star

[edit]

Realized I missed this edit, incorrectly marked as minor, with the edit summary: "remove outdated paragraph about 2013 appointments from the begining of the "political positions" section. the information is present elsewhere in the article."

−
Since taking federal office, Jeffries has been called "a rising star". He has been appointed to the House Judiciary Committee Task Force on Over Criminalization, and was also appointed the [[Whip (politics)|whip]] of the [[Congressional Black Caucus]] (CBC). He plays in the infield on the [[Congressional Baseball Game|Congressional Baseball Team]].
+
  1. ^ "Brooklyn Influentials - Hakeem Jeffries: The Rising Star". New York Observer. NY Observer Editorial. May 14, 2014. Archived from the original on July 11, 2014. Retrieved May 14, 2014.
  2. ^ "Congressman Jeffries Appointed To Bipartisan House Task Force On Over-Criminalization". Jeffries.house.gov. Rep. Jeffries Press Release. May 8, 2013. Archived from the original on September 13, 2014. Retrieved May 13, 2013.
  3. ^ "Membership". Congressional Black Caucus. Archived from the original on April 27, 2019. Retrieved March 7, 2018.
  4. ^ "Rep. Jeffries Statement on Today's Election as Whip of the Congressional Black Caucus". Rep. Jeffries Press Release. November 19, 2014. Archived from the original on December 6, 2014. Retrieved November 19, 2014.
  5. ^ "Congressional Baseball Game Democratic Roster". Roll Call. June 11, 2013. Archived from the original on June 15, 2013. Retrieved June 11, 2013.

Despite the edit summary, the House Judiciary Committee Task Force on Over Criminalization is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Given the role this issue has played in his political rise, it is sensible to include it. I have also located a better source [26]

Second: the "rising star" description is also not elsewhere in the article. I believe this description is justified since it has been used repeatedly. I had ChatGPT spin up a list of references to him as a rising star prior to becoming leader, a few are below:

  • New York Magazine (June 22, 2012): "a smiley family man and rising star" [27]
  • The Atlantic (Nov. 6, 2012): "Jeffries is already garnering plenty of hype as a rising star in the Democratic Party"[28]
  • New York Times (July 19, 2018): "“Hakeem is one of the rising stars of the Democratic Party,” Senator Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, said in an interview."[29]
  • Reuters (Jan. 22, 2020): "considered a rising star in the party and a potential future House speaker" [30]
  • CBS News (Dec. 1, 2022): "Long considered a rising star in the party" [31]

Opening a discussion here for discussion ahead of re-introducing the above. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, not *every* sentence is elsewhere in the article.
The House Judiciary Committee Task Force on Over Criminalization is not mentioned, but the way it was presented, it fails several tests for Wikipedia:BURDEN and WP:NPOV.
One: committee does not exist anymore, but the present tense implies that it does.
Two: Jeffries was not an author or sponsor of any of the bills that came out of that committee.
Three: He was also a junior member.
Is his participation in a one congress committee notable? No.
Since taking federal office, Jeffries has been called "a rising star".
He is now the leader of the house of representatives. This could be a sentence that could find a home somewhere else in the article, but he is not described as a rising star now.
Baseball stuff has been updated and corrected, (which I will note that this is I think the third time you've had something to say about it (despite adding the original wrong citation)) in the personal life section because it seems to fit better there.
Most of this I would consider out of date and falls under WP:NSUSTAINED. CompleteAnonymity (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I moved the Task Force to the appropriate section on criminal justice reform. I think the wording is clear in stating that the appointment occurred "shortly after" he took office but I'm not opposed to somehow including that the committee doesn't exist anymore if you have a suggestion on how to do that.
Regarding the rising star sentence, I agree that it could be improved (I struggled with how to write it). Ideally, we want the sentence to state that he was described as a rising star following his first election and then he became leader. It's a core part of his biography but I agree it could be phrased more elegantly. If you have thoughts on how to word it, let's discuss.
And baseball stuff is fine under personal life, not sure why you thought I was bringing it up? It was part of the edit but not what I was calling attention to here... Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem unfamiliar with the customs here on wikipedia - you aren't supposed to revert an entire edit when you only disagree with part of it. CompleteAnonymity (talk) 09:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Critical nickname?

[edit]

Why should his critical social media nickname by Charlamagne the God, "AIPAC Shakur" not be mentioned in the article? It has received coverage from The New York Times 1 and The New Republic 1. It has also received attention from independent media such as Breaking Points 1, and The Young Turks 2 and Ken Klippenstein 3. I see in the edit history that IPs have also tried to add it but without any RS. Theofunny (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dcpoliticaljunkie Theofunny (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's unencyclopedic and a WP:NPOV issue on a WP:BLP to highlight a negative quote from an entertainer. We don't include every positive quote or endorsement in articles on national political leaders and we shouldn't include a cherry-picked detraction either WP:MINORASPECT. If this belongs anywhere, it would be on Charlamagne the God's article imo. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mamdani ally weighs challenging Hakeem Jeffries
https://www.semafor.com/article/10/06/2025/democratic-primary-challengers-see-an-opening-on-israel
More coverage of it. Theofunny (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is this not a WP:MINORASPECT? This doesn't have the widespread use of "Sleepy Joe", for instance, which is not contained in Biden's biography. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhk Theofunny (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-endorsement of Mamdani

[edit]

Jeffries was yet to endorse the Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani for New York Mayor as of September 2025. His decision has been criticized by congressional progressives and Senator Chris Van Hollen.[1][2][3][4][5]

What is the rationale against including his non-endorsement of Zohran Mamdani which has significant coverage in media WP:SIGCOV and is notable with him being the highest ranking national Democratic official from New York after Schumer. I can find dozens of more sources from months ago as well as recently. Theofunny (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @CompleteAnonymity @Dcpoliticaljunkie @Muboshgu since y'all have been involved in its additions and reverts before. Theofunny (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did someone raise an objection to this? I didn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I objected. There's a discussion about this above but to summarize, I believe that this material is WP:UNDUE. While this is getting more coverage at this time, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. I've listed 20+ prior local endorsements he's made which are not discussed in the article with the following explanation:
Including all of these endorsements (and any additional endorsements we find) would take over a significant portion of the page, be of limited encyclopedic value (WP:PROPORTION), and be an undue level of detail. Focusing just on the current mayor and current mayoral election would be an example of WP:RECENTISM. It is also of local interest rather than national or international, as we should focus on here. On the flip side, picking and choosing here to make a narrative would violate WP:NPOV.
It's now getting more national coverage but I still think WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE apply. Even if this particular endorsement should be included, I object to the assertion generic "congressional progressives" criticized him without naming who they are and the implication that Van Hollen is not a congressional progressive (he's been described as a leader of the "progressive block", and the lack of other voices which is concerning from a WP:NPOV perspective. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have been calling it recentism and undue since months. It's not recentism or undue anymore and I don't understand your objection to it. Chris Van Hollen is the leader of the pro-Palestinian block not progressives and has been only referred to as progressive from the conservative JewishInsider. The CPC's leadership and major progressives in the house and Senate have criticized it. You are free to mention praise for his decision if you find any because he has not received much if any from major figures. Simply stating facts that he has received criticism from many in his caucus is not POV.
FWIW, Van Hollen has won his primaries running as a moderate against leftists, including his Senate primary in 2016 and his resume is being in leadership positions in "the moderate establishment" of the House.
2016 primary: Racial politics upend Democratic Senate primary in Maryland - POLITICO [32] Theofunny (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my view @Dcpoliticaljunkie is displaying classic Wikipedia:OWNBEHAVIOR about this article, since he wrote around 70% or 80% of it.
As he is a former Democratic National Committee employee, he should recuse himself from actively policing the article and arguing over any and all updates - but I do not think he will do that. CompleteAnonymity (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not write anywhere close to 80% of this article (I'd guess something like 15% and much of that was copied with attribution from a related article).
Secondly, please assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. Also note that outing my previous employment, if it were true (it is not), would be WP:OUTING.
Regarding Van Hollen being a progressive, he seems to identify as one including during his 2016 primary. I don't see a need to discuss this now but if a consensus develops for adding this, we can discuss the specific wording. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain how recentism and undue applies to this? To quote JewishInsider, "Van Hollen emerging as leader of progressive Senate bloc critical of Israeli policy", I don't think that this is the same as being a progressive too.Theofunny (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Hochul's key political ally weighs resignation after Mamdani endorsement". POLITICO. 2025-09-19. Retrieved 2025-09-19.
  2. ^ Solender, Andrew (2025-09-16). "Scoop: House Democrats rage at their "hypocritical" leaders over Mamdani foot-dragging". Axios. Retrieved 2025-10-02.
  3. ^ "Fewer candidates = more pressure for Schumer, Jeffries in New York City's race for a new mayor". POLITICO. 2025-09-29. Retrieved 2025-10-03.
  4. ^ Coltin, Jeff (2025-09-24). "The Mamdani Question". POLITICO. Retrieved 2025-10-03.
  5. ^ Freedlander, David (2025-10-02). "The Mamdani Effect". Intelligencer. Retrieved 2025-10-03.