Talk:2022 United States House of Representatives elections in New York

Moss

Christopher Moss is a Republican not a Democrat. He was Rob Asterino’s 2014 running mate. 2603:7081:4E01:7097:F960:AE63:6A8A:B5AB (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Twitter and FEC PDFs are not a valid source

I believed that this is standard procedure, is it not? GeorgeBailey (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

removed link farm

I've removed the link farm from the "External links" section in this article because it is counter to Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia is not a directory. Any prudent person would consider an EL section of more than 60 links a link farm, and is counter to Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. The long list was replaced with a link to the New York State Board of Elections website. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

chaos, AOC, and the new districts

The new maps have turned the races chaotic. According to state and federal law, all candidates have to live in the districts they represent. Thus, Rana Abdelhamid will have to run against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or withdraw. Notwisconsin (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Notwisconsin: This is NOT true. Federal law states that one only has to live in the state of the district they wish to represent. Stormy160 (talk)

But, if I'm not mistaken, New York law does require a representative to live in the district which they represent. I don't know if it must be their primary residence, though. —⁠71.105.198.152 (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, Notwisconsin, I think New York allows someone to be a candidate in a district that they don't live in, but if they win, they must become a resident of that district by the time they are sworn in. —⁠71.105.198.152 (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Endorsements have to be for the district a candidate is running in

My edit summary got cut off for exceeding the character limit, but I would like to remind editors that we can only add endorsements if they are for the position that the candidate is running for. The previously included endorsements for Mondaire Jones were all endorsing him for re-election in NY-17. None of these organizations have endorsed him as a candidate for NY-10. If they do support him for NY-10 later, these endorsements can be re-added. Until then, we should not consider endorsements for re-election NY-17 as endorsements for his NY-10 run. --ArticleEditorFriend (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Presumptive nominees

There are a number of candidates, such as AOC, who are the only ones on the ballot, and thus the primary has been cancelled. I think we should declare them the presumptive nominees and then remove the 'presumptive' the day after the primary.Notwisconsin (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Michael Flynn party affiliation (endorsements)

It isn't mentioned on other articles, so why this one? Jenkowelten (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Current 19th district

The article's section for the new 19th needs to be updated to reflect that Delgado has taken the oath of office for lieutenant governor and, more importantly, there is a special election scheduled (on the same day as the primary, I think). —⁠71.105.198.152 (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Trump "endorsements"

Do we agree that we should not include Trump's "endorsements" of Carolyn Maloney and Dan Goldman. Per The Hill, Former President Trump appeared on Wednesday to give facetious endorsements ... Between Maloney and Nadler, Trump called the congresswoman the “better man.” ... The endorsements are likely Trump’s sarcastic way of weighing in on the New York House primaries, which are scheduled for Tuesday, and could be a method of fomenting division among Democrats. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

We should not make assumptions about endorsements. Wikipedia is factual and endorsements were issued. The source is an opinion based article, and Wikipedia should be as unbiased as

possicle. Dashing24 (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah let’s not include the Trump endorsements. Clearly just a backhanded joke. I think it would be misleading. Stormy160 (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stormy160 How clear? only one media said so while others disagree 47.219.236.178 (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Fox News puts "endorsement" in quotation marks with the title Trump announces 'endorsement' of impeachment manager, other New York Democrats in sarcastic posts. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Business Insider: Trump 'endorses' Democrats in confusing and apparently sarcastic posts – Muboshgu (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you really think Trump is enthusiastically endorsing a NYC liberal democrat? Seems like you are using media coverage as a cover for something you know is clearly not the case. I think this is just basic common sense. Stormy160 (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stormy160 He is a pro life Cuellar like blue dog, Besides that is just an opinion, wikipefia should avoid opinion. 47.219.236.178 (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

And as you said media coverage is going both ways, we can’t weigh some outlets over others and instead should just use sound judgement. Stormy160 (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stormy160 So if media disagree with something we should not draw conclusion like"this is backhanded and should be deleted" especially the hill do not provide any proof to that opinion. 47.219.236.178 (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah, there’s an agenda going on here. Seems like you are letting your negative view of Goldman guide your editing. I think we should think of the average reader using this page to get information on the candidates, they wouldn’t understand the circumstances of the Trump “endorsement” without prior knowledge of it. It’s misleading. Stormy160 (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stormy160 "Pro life" is in his own wikipefia page with good source, not my agenda. 47.219.236.178 (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stormy160 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_S._Goldman?wprov=sfla1 I thought you have read this since you edited it. 47.219.236.178 (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Well Stormy, you are attacking others for their views and including assumptions, well you are clearly very let leaning and biased. The consensus use factual info and keep it under endorsements, denigrating Trump as a Republican and that the endorsement was rejected. Stormy, your edits will be undone and I will report you if you continue. Dashing24 (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah my point was that comment clearly came with a negative opinion. If you have strong opinions on the subject I suggest you don’t edit his page or related ones. The point is that regardless of one’s opinion on Goldman (or Maloney) we should use sound judgement and common sense, thinking of how readers will interpret the information and therefore whether it’s misleading. This is a clear and obvious case. Stormy160 (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stormy160 Problem is our common sence can be different and so do others, so using it as proof to delete some endorsements that fits the wikipedia policy is not proper, to solve this you can add some source to say this endorsement is possible to be backhanded and let readers judge whether it is or not. 47.219.236.178 (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. If we want to, we can have some middle ground and say that the candidates in question who received the endorsement didn't accept it. Fekj (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Fekj Though the candidate use it as proof that Trump is afraid of him instead of reject it so this do not apply here, but we can add(reported to be backhanded) 47.219.236.178 (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Instead of reporting it as backhanded, we should report if the candidate accepted it or not, because all made statements against it Fekj (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

He do not reject it.https://twitter.com/najimbenine/status/1560060002341109762?t=DnnXfjlx1F1bnRNtqkOcJA&s=19 47.219.236.178 (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

That's not what Goldman said. You're showing us a tweet from a Republican in NY-10. https://twitter.com/danielsgoldman/status/1560046482048286720, there, that's what Goldman said. He had a tweet to go to with that image: I’m coming for you, Donald. He says that Trump is pretending. That's a rejection if I've ever seen one. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu they are the same picture. 47.219.236.178 (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, you didn't link to Goldman's response, you linked to a Republican's response to Goldman. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it shouldn’t be under “Dan Goldman endorsements” at all. A section for rejected endorsements would work but at that point why bother. Same goes for Maloney Stormy160 (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stormy160 Why?List any non opinion proof please. 47.219.236.178 (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Well first of all he straight up rejected it and second I don’t think calling it backhanded is much of an opinion because it very clearly is. I see no reason to believe that Trump is legitimately endorsing these candidates. Stormy160 (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

https://mobile.twitter.com/danielsgoldman/status/1560046482048286720 This is not endorsement, Besides this is a deep blue district and Goldman is the only pro life candidate in this primary thus he is the most conservative candidate i primary https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-york-elections-government/ny-election-2022-dan-goldman-congressional-district-10-abortion-20220719-54bkssqixfhple34x34zkw4gwy-story.html, it is quite possible that Trump endorsed him like democrats endorse Murkowski in Alaska Senate election to get the most liberal candidate that can win Alaska to be elected since they think they can't win Alaska this year. 47.219.236.178 (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, Dan Goldman isn’t pro life. That’s just a ridiculous smear, and I don’t even like Goldman much myself. Stop injecting false information that clearly stems from a highly negative opinion of him into this discussion. Second, the implication behind that tweet is pretty darn obvious. Stormy160 (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Goldman is not pro-life. Read his platform and he's clearly pro-choice. Regardless, Trump is not going to endorse the guy, who lead the impeachment efforts against him. If anything, it's an attempt to stop him from winning. Seems like you have something against Goldman, and support another candidate, but this isn't the forum for such. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree the endorsements don't really merit inclusion. Clearly backhanded and done in a deeply unserious manner. As an aside though, I'd advise Stormy160 to be aware of the WP:3RR. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stormy160: seriously. This is your seventh revert in the space of 24h. Don't get yourself blocked over this. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Regardless if Goldman rejected Trump's endorsement, I still think it merits an inclusion in the article as it arguably have shifted the race's dynamics in the last few days of the election. A similar case would be the endorsements of Richard B. Spencer for Joe Biden and David Duke's endorsement of Tulsi Gabbard, both of which they rejected. News articles have called Trump's comments as "mock endorsements," but they are still endorsements regardless, and if you read what Trump actually said, they are quite positive in his appraisal of Goldman. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Trump`s endorsement should be included

Why does left-wing wiki hide the support from this master troll? 80.131.62.127 (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

See previous discussion please. Stormy160 (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Lock this page for August 23rd, 2022

Hello everyone, Today is the day of elections. I think the page should be locked until 9 PM (when polls close) to avoid griefing, trolling, etc. Gaius Publius Scipio (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:PREEMPTIVE we generally don't protect pages as a "just in case" measure. However, if the page does start getting griefed/vandalised etc, the venue at which to request protection is WP:RPP. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Jackie Gordon.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Francis Conole.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Brandon Williams for New York District 22 (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Should we make general election endorsement boxes as well? Is it possible to make the primary ones collapsible as to not be redundant?

Title GeorgeBailey (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Endorsement boxes are uncollapsed by default, but is collapsible, per Template:Endorsements box/doc. I think we shouldn't make endorsement boxes for unopposed primary races and only include them for general elections, if that's the case. —twotwofourtysix^{(talk || edits)} 06:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Unreferenced material

I've again removed the unreferenced election results from this page. High-value outcome statistics like these should be readily rferenced and verifiable, but there is nothing in this article to show their source or help verify them. They might be welcome if they can be properly sourced, but until then I think it's irresponsible to keep them in the page. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

These come from the board of elections website, but just because it can be difficult to link a spreadsheet file as a source (used by NYSBOE) doesn't mean we should erase all primary results from this article. GeorgeBailey (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding references isn't difficult, even if the source is a published spreadsheet. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, and content which isn't can be challenged and removed. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like @Twotwofourtysix: restored all of the quantitative results but only provided references for about half of them. Are the rest of the references forthcoming? Also, it looks like may of the numbers in the article don't match the spreadseet at all. Since so much information in the article is wrong or unreferenced, shouldn't these results just be deleted? -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean that the general election results are unreferenced? If so, I can provide citations for those too —twotwofourtysix^{(talk || edits)} 03:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

For example: the "New York's 3rd congressional district, 2022" table, which looks like it's in a "General Election" section, is unreferenced. Same for any other "General Election" table I've checked so far. None of the "Republican Primary Results" tables I've checked so far have numbers that match the given spreadsheet reference. Each of the infoboxes (for example "2022 New York's 2nd congressional district election") has vote counts that are unreferenced, and I don't see them referenced in the body of the article. It's a real mess, so I don't see why the quantitative results should remain when they're either unreferenced or fail verification. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

And sure enough, the popular votes fail verification, too. The infobox "2022 New York's 3rd congressional district election" says that Santos had 142,673 votes, and Zimmerman had 121,094. The Bureau of Elections site says Santons has 143,896 and 122,299 Zimmerman has 122,299. This article is in very poor condition as far as facts go. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

If the problems are the raw numbers – which might not be updated between the initial reporting of results and the official certification of results – then the most constructive course of action would be to just simply update them, not wholesale removal, in my opinion. —twotwofourtysix^{(talk || edits)} 04:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like @DukeOfDelTaco: made some updates, but there are still problems with the article contradicting itself and not matching the given references. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)