Talk:Sean Duffy

Position on climate change

Hi @Ελενη Φ. Could you explain in further detail your reasoning for deleting the last line on the "Position on climate change" section, the one about climate change not being caused by the sun? More specifically, why you think this was "inserted for the politically correct crowd"? That piece of context is found in the source itself. Thanks WikiFouf (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

No comment so I've re-added it; if anyone else objects you can explain your reasoning here WikiFouf (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Tweaking refs

Hello. I'm making a change back to the original citation scheme. This will take a few days and won't affect the article's stability (which is a GA criterion). Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done -SusanLesch (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your work to clean up the citation scheme in this article. This was clearly not a small amount of work. Kudos for your effort here.FFM784 (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sean Duffy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) 19:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Qwerty123M (talk · contribs) 06:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I will serve as the experienced reviewer for this review as part of the June 2026 backlog drive. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Article looks to be in great shape and very informative! I thought this article would not meet the requirement to be stable, but it seems relatively stable with only a few edits each month.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Discussion

Experienced reviewer

@Qwerty123M: Hi! I will serve as the experienced reviewer for this article. You can use the Copyvio detector in the GA Toolbox (located at the top-left corner of this review) to check for plagiarism. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Have I done well with the review so far? Do I need to provide any constructive feedback? I haven't provided that so far I can't immediately see anything that looks out of place. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You are supposed to provide constructive feedback only if you find an issue in the article. You are encouraged to be more descriptive with your review, even if it is positive. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Although it is not an actual rule, it is preferred to explicitly state the output of a source spot check like this:

• 130. Y
• 140. Y
• 150. N The source does not mention this person.
• 160. Y
• 170. Y

TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe and Qwerty123M: I added expansion tags in the "Political positions" section. These must be addressed. I will place this review on hold. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

If it's got maintenance tags, should it be quick-failed? Also, how do you know there is more content that should be included? Qwerty123M (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Why did you pass this nomination before I said you can? Per the rules of the drive, a newbie reviewer must wait for the confirmation of the experienced reviewer before closing a review. I would have let this pass if I didn't find a major issue, but I did.

Expansion tags are cleanup tags. A reviewer must give the editors time to resolve the tags, typically in seven days. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for not waiting, I must not have fully understood that requirement at the time. Considering that I had not gotten any response from you, I was getting impatient and passed the nomination too quickly as it turns out, my impatience must have arisen because we are in different time zones, I'm in Australian Eastern Standard Time (AEST) which makes communication with many other parts of the world very inconvenient. Qwerty123M (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

You have to wait. Per WP:GANI#R3, Review timeframes vary from one nomination to the next, but a responsive nominator and reviewer can complete a review in about seven days. You may decide to put the review "on hold" for about seven days to allow time for issues to be fixed. It hasn't even been one day since I put myself as this review's experienced reviewer.

I highly suggest you fully read and understand WP:GANI, WP:GA? and the drive's guidelines before you start reviewing another article. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M and ElijahPepe: A GA Drive coordinator has allowed me to revert the closure. The expansion tags must be addressed, and then Qwerty123M must review any further edits before considering passing or failing this nomination. Also, the coordinator found a source from the New York Post that must be removed. The New York Post is generally unreliable per WP:LISTOFSOURCES. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@TheVoicelessWriter: Should be fixed. Looks like there was some vandalism with using that source; I didn't write that, nor did I write some of these other sections. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:01, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe: It does not matter that you did not write those, and upon checking, they were not vandalism. The NYPost source was most likely by someone who did not know that the NYPost is not reliable and not acceptable in Wikipedia. Please do understand that us reviewers are evaluating the article, not the editor, not the top editors, not the nominator. Anyways, I have decided to add back the section you removed. It is relevant information, given his previous and current positions in the US government. Please expand this section instead of removing it.

Also, the "killing of Iryna Zarutska" statement still needs more context. Even the source has more vital information than that. If you can find more related and relevant information from other reliable sources, you can even add those to the article as well.

Regarding the New York Post source that supports the statement, Speaking to reporters, Duffy placed the blame for this development on the Biden administration’s refusal to allow a merger between Spirit and JetBlue that would have ostensibly saved Spirit, even though Spirit CEO Dave Davis blamed the high price of jet fuel as the reason for the company’s demise. By simply just removing it, this statement is left with a source that does not even mention Duffy blaming the Biden administration. This must be fixed. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The source does not add anything beyond Duffy's comment. There's no context needed. If something is missing, add it. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

“This monster had a track record longer than a CVS receipt, including prison time for robbery with a dangerous weapon, breaking and entering, and larceny,” Duffy said on X. “By failing to properly punish him, Charlotte failed Iryna Zarutska and North Carolinians.” The source literally has more vital information as Duffy pointed out that the alleged assailant already has a criminal record that includes violent crimes. Also, Duffy did not call out those officials for not arresting the assailant sooner, he called them out because they failed to properly punish him.

I edited it myself since you seemingly missed that. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you want me to start reviewing the article again yet? You seem to have a lot of control over this process so I figure it's best that I ask you was the best course of action is now. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:03, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerty123M: I checked the article. You can pass the nomination and close the review now. Please use this easy-to-use handy script that automates the review closing process. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.