Talk:Jay C. Block

Additional source

Don't have time to tackle it at the moment, but here's an article with stuff like where he went to college and other base facts. Part 1, and the much bigger part 2 and the sidebar. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Photo

If someone wants to put in the energy, it would be good to crop the photo to just its left half -- it will run larger and be more focused on the subject. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

How's that? JFHJr (㊟) 04:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Fixed a location parameter oopsie; it started as an article image in situ, but I promoted it to the infobox for being the only one. Now it's centered. JFHJr (㊟) 04:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Good work. That works well if this is what we have for the infobox... but if we get a more recent picture for that, it would be nice to have the soldier photo at full height, give him at least some context. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, a more recent photo would be great for the info box. To place the CSS Crop image in an article, it might need a manually added thumbnail box and caption. The crop height can be extended much more easily but also manually. Feel free to ping me if help is needed down-placing or modifying the image. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 06:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know about the CSS crop box. I'm an old man, I brute-force edit things with Photoshop the way my mammy did and her mammy before her. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

The photo thankfully got updated, and the context for the wartime photo is mostly gone. If and when it's not WP:UNDUE per context, here's another CSS crop for content illustration: {{Css Image Crop|Image=080520-F-3001D-002.jpg |bSize=300 |cWidth=150 |cHeight=220 |oTop=0 |oLeft=0 |Location=right |Description=Block in 2004}}. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 02:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Do I need to fully protect the page while you folks discuss it?

Happy to do so. I encourage the editors editwarring in live pagespace to talk here please. BusterD (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Third person controversy

S0091 and I have removed a paragraph of controversy that's mostly about someone else (irrelevant content is WP:UNDUE) and references this subject in a rather WP:BLPSPS fashion or not at all. If there's a problem with removal of this content about an alleged controversy or criticism, I hope others will offer to explain here how it's biographically significant and of enduring coverage in regards to this subject (not someone else by association). Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 23:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

My initial removal was on erroneous grounds so rightfully reverted. However, I now have done a Google and Proquest search, with names spelled correctly this time :), and the only source I found that mentions the criticism is the one article by the Santa Fe New Mexican. Unless there are other reliable sources indicating significance, I agree it is WP:UNDUE. S0091 (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2025 (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:

• Commissioner Jay Block cropped.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

@Block2024 you have removed some content stating it is inaccurate. Some of the content you removed is sourced to reliable sources so that should stay but if there are claims not supported by the sources, that should be removed. Can you please be specific so we can help? Also, please take a look at this version of the article. Is that version accurate? S0091 (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• What I think should be changed: Please simplify the “Personal life” section to only state:

“Block is married to Jennifer.”

• Why it should be changed: The current section contains extensive detail regarding family disputes and social media commentary that may place undue emphasis on personal matters rather than the subject’s public career and political activity. A concise statement would better align with neutrality and due-weight considerations for biographies of living persons.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): The proposed replacement is intended as a concise summary of current publicly known biographical information.

Jay Christopher Block (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jay Christopher Block please do not use AI chatbots like ChatGPT per WP:LLMTALK. For one thing, they get Wikipedia's policies wrong as they have no understanding of them and they also can make-up policies that do not exist along with other issues. Other than that, glad you started a discussion. Can you please outline the issues with the sources used and how the content specifically does not align with WP:NPOV? In your own words of course. S0091 (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Also pinging @JFHJr and @NatGertler who have engaged here previously and have edited the article so may be interested. It's generally better have additional perspectives. S0091 (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

If we look past the nonsense generated by whatever pretending machine was used, what we have is a request that we ignore matters covered by one of the world's most prestigious papers and by the oddly politically significant Teen Vogue... that's real natural coverage, not the Albequerque Journal and the Sandoval Signpost, putting it at higher visible signficance for us. (Want something more local? Here's a news service story carried in several New Mexico papers, apparently originally in the Santa Fe New Mexican.) We have sources from both 2022 and 2025, so it's not just a one-shot thing. I don't see any reason why we would remove this. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree there's no putting that back in the bottle once it was published in national publications. I think it could be more specific, though. Reading both the Teen Vogue and NYT articles, her main criticisms are about his stances regarding Israel and abortion. Also, I am uncomfortable with the "he had not been receptive to her private confrontations", She did say that but to me, that's gets into private conversations, which may or may not have taken place so I think we should stick indisputable facts. The NYT article also quotes Senator Block: Reached by phone last week, Senator Block said he was proud of his daughter, and that he supported her right to say whatever she wanted about his political positions. The two are not currently in contact, he said.. I think that has a place in the article as well in some form. S0091 (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I am only commenting on the big picture, that these material should not be simply deleted. I have no objection to some fine-tuning. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I: have made the above mentioned updates. I also closed the COI edit request to get it out of the queue given it will not be approved as is. @Jay Christopher Block:, you are still welcome to participate in the discussion. S0091 (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)