Talk:Dan Goldman

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Daniel S. Goldman.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Daniel S. Goldman (2).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Daniel S. Goldman (2019).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Dan S. Goldman (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2022

remove "Goldman's campaign hired a Republican campaign consultant who supported former President Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election and called Rep. Maxine Waters “retarded” over her support for Trump’s impeachment to perform voter outreach to Orthodox Jewish voters in Borough Park, Brooklyn.[25] His campaign immediately fired the consultant and clarified that they were "unaware of these grossly offensive remarks" when City & State contacted them for comment.[25]

Goldman's financial disclosures indicate he has a line of credit from Goldman Sachs worth up to US$50 million in addition to investments in weapons manufacturer Sturm, Ruger & Co., oil companies Chevron and Exxon Mobil, and Rupert Murdoch's Fox Corporation. Goldman's campaign said he will put his assets into a blind trust if he were to be elected and that he is no longer invested in Sturm, Ruger & Co.[26]"

as they are not within the guidelines of unbiased, verifiable information 100.38.109.49 (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The prose is sourced, and I'm unsure why it would be biased. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 18 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Dan Goldman (politician). Consensus that there it no clear primacy. Moved Daniel S. Goldman to Dan Goldman (politician), while Dan Goldman to Dan Goldman (writer). Dan Goldman will redirect to Daniel Goldman dab page. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 04:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

---

• Daniel S. Goldman → Dan Goldman
• Dan Goldman → Dan Goldman (writer)

– Clearly, the Dan Goldman who is running for Congress is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name Dan Goldman. The writer's article is older, is why they're not in their proper places yet. Even before the August viewspike related to the primary, the lawyer's page way outpaces the writer's page in views. Looking through news sources produces the same result. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. I agree. Johnnycorns5354 (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support per PRIMARY, and whoever's at base name should have a hatnote linking to DAB at Daniel Goldman.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support move JesseRafe (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
• Disambiguate. There are two other senses on the disambiguation page. BD2412 T 02:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support, though I would double-check if it should be "writer" or "artist"; he works on graphic novels and I'm not sure which is preferred. Fredlesaltique (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral regarding Daniel S. Goldman → Dan Goldman. The inline cites appended to the article confirm that he has been frequently referenced as "Daniel Goldman". Support Dan Goldman → Dan Goldman (writer), but would preferably support Dan Goldman → Dan Goldman (comics). If consensus does not coalesce around Daniel S. Goldman → Dan Goldman, then "Dan Goldman" should redirect to the Daniel Goldman disambiguation page. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 14:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support #2 per nom. I'm more neutral about #1, given that he still calls himself Daniel on twitter. Might be worth waiting to see what he uses as a rep (if he is elected). Nohomersryan (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Disambiguate. I agree with BD2412, make Daniel Goldman and Dan Goldman a single dab page. Discussions about individual naming is appropriate, but it's obviously not straightforward to use non-dabbed names- in other words, it isn't like "person A is Daniel, person B is Dan". tedder (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• Disambiguate. It's not clear that either has primacy over the other. Instead, create a disambiguation page at Dan Goldman and redirect Daniel Goldman to that disambig, and then move the respective Dans to Dan Goldman (writer), and Dan Goldman (politician). Then — The Anome (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• Disambiguate and move the articles to Dan Goldman (politician) and Dan Goldman (writer) per The Anome et al. Graham (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2022 (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.

Incorrect information about wealth

There are appears to be incorrect information about his wealth. According to the articles, Goldman's financial disclosures say that his wealth could be "up to $253 million," this article says that they are $253 million. This should be corrected. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-30/dan-goldman-levi-strauss-heir-would-join-congress-s-richest-with-nyc-win Maytheforthbewithyou (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2022

There is a mistake/typo. The page refers to Goldman as “Golden” … 198.24.20.23 (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Goldman_%28politician%29&type=revision&diff=1112862458&oldid=1112691868 Cannolis (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Dan Goldman (politician)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Dan Goldman (politician)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "generalresults":

• From Kelly Armstrong: "Unofficial 2022 General Election Results". North Dakota Secretary of State. November 8, 2022. Retrieved November 13, 2022.
• From 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in New York: "2022 General Election Results — Certified December 15, 2022". New York State Board of Elections. Archived from the original on December 30, 2022. Retrieved December 30, 2022.
• From Ryan Zinke: "2022 GENERAL ELECTION - UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE". Secretary of State of Montana. November 8, 2022. Archived from the original on June 3, 2020. Retrieved November 14, 2022.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Divorce to Anne Montminy

In the infobox it says that Goldman divorced her in 2008, but on Montminy’sWikipedia page it says they divorced in 2004; but the source that claims this is unreliable. Furthermore, by doing some more research I couldn’t find a clear source on whether the divorce was in ‘04 or ‘08. What do you do in this case? (Greenpython53 (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Dan Goldman (politician) → Dan Goldman – Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by pageviews . Fairly obvious long-term significance as a member of the US Congress and an actor in the impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Clear primary topic. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. See also WikiNav (208 outgoing clicks from DABpage at Daniel Goldman vs. <10 for each other topics). SilverLocust 💬 03:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I was ambivalent about moving this page to Dan in the first place as can be seen in the old RM, but I think even aside from that, he's the primary topic. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nomination, Mdewman6, SilverLocust and Nohomersryan. Congressman Dan Goldman is indeed primary over Dan Goldman (writer). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:41, 8 October 2023 (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.

UNDUE

@Dcpoliticaljunkie: It'll be easier for us to discuss if you provide a starting reason for why you think the passages you picked out are undue rather than me having to guess. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 21:19, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I could see an argument for rewording, but the content itself is clearly WP:DUE & well-sourced, so I don't understand the full removal. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I cut a number of items for varying reasons. Which one do you want to re-add? For example, the Zionist identification cited only to his House website is certainly undue. Including the number of other party members who voted for something is editorializing.

It's worth noting much of this material is clearly not NPOV in addition to being undue. It's been added around the same time as a primary challenger emerged with similar talking points. WP:VNOT. WP:ONUS is on editors seeking to include the material and we must apply a higher standard for BLPs. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I think the Zionist identification is fine as a WP:SELFSOURCE, though may be better moved to "Early life and family".

I'll also say that the following material is due (though again, I'm not against rewording)

"In July 2025, Goldman blamed Hamas for the mass starvation in the Gaza Strip, stating, "Hamas could end it today if they wanted to. Israel has agreed to a ceasefire proposal, Hamas has rejected it. Release the hostages and end this travesty." Goldman has taken donations from the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC and accepted its endorsement. He has been described as a staunch supporter of Israel during the Gaza war."

I'll note the first sentence here was stable for several months, being added back in July, so WP:ONUS doesn't apply there. In regards to the rest though, I think that accepted/received donations are a notable topic when reliably sourced. I'm indifferent to the "staunch supporter of Israel during the Gaza war." bit though. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Apologies. I lost track of this discussion. I would note that WP:ONUS simply states: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." AFAIK, there is no "stable for several months" exception that flips the onus to those seeking to exclude but please correct me if I'm wrong. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Dcpoliticaljunkie has a pattern of removing sourced content related to AIPAC and Israel on political biography articles, frequently citing WP:UNDUE. This behavior raises concerns about viewpoint-based removal rather than policy-based editing.

Examples of related edits include:

Cory Booker:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cory_Booker&diff=prev&oldid=1328061958

Brad Lander:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brad_Lander&diff=prev&oldid=1328058729

The pages Goldman, Booker and Lander were edited in a short span of time.

Glenn Ivey

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glenn_Ivey&oldid=1321975875

Sarah Elfredth

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Elfreth&oldid=1315100545

In both cases, similar WP:RSP content was removed using the same justification, suggesting a broader issue that warrants discussion here rather than isolated article talk pages. This may also be taken to Administrator's noticeboard.

The content on the Cory Booker article was originally added by @Reflecktor, who may wish to comment on the sourcing and relevance of the material.

Additionally, there appears to be a misunderstanding of WP:SYNTH but mostly WP:ONUS / WP:BURDEN. While the burden is on the editor adding content to provide reliable sources - which was done - and relevance, these policies do not grant license to remove every well-sourced information about AIPAC and Israel in multiple article, no matter how well sourced, long-standing or relevant, based solely on personal disagreement and asking whoever reverts the removal to justify it. Theofunny (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Sarah Elfredth's talk page discussion: Talk:Sarah Elfreth#Campaign finance paragraph

Editor involved: @Y2hyaXM

Editor involved at Glenn Ivey: the aforementioned user.

Editors also involved at Cory Booker: @Orga8.

Another recent edit with a similar rationale which was reverted by @Mihir.pethe1:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ritchie_Torres&oldid=1325858409 Theofunny (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

For transparency, I want to state up front that I am not affiliated with or a member of any lobbying organization, including AIPAC, J Street, Track AIPAC, CAIR, or any similar group.

Given that this discussion involves disputes related to Israel, AIPAC, and U.S. congressional politics, I think it is reasonable and fair to ask editors engaging here to disclose any potential conflicts of interest specifically whether they are members of, employed by, or formally affiliated with AIPAC or related advocacy organizations.

I want to make it clear that my disclosure is not an accusation. Theofunny (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Theofunny, lets keep discussion focused on content related to this article. An article talk page is not the place to hash out perceived issues with an editor's behavior or alleged affiliations. Take those to the relevant noticeboard. Longhornsg (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

He has spammed the same WP policy at Cory Booker and Brad Lander at the same time to remove the same type of content so that removal is closely related and should be discussed here imo. Theofunny (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE* Theofunny (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Why do you think so? —ADavidB 18:34, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

All of this sort of thing is reliably sourced, claims of "undue" smacks of whitewashing. Reflecktor (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Regarding donations, there probably should be a wider discussion on the appropriateness of including campaign contributions/endorsements from interest group in narratives involving positions of politicians. I remember similar discussions popping up with votes/positions on choice and Planned Parenthood donations, labor issues and labor union endorsements/funding, gun control and Everytown/NRA, etc.

The issue is there's almost always at least one reporter who includes it as context in a story "Congressman X voted in favor of gun control after Michael Bloomberg spent XXX to get them elected" or "voted against gun safety ... has been a long history of being supported by the NRA".

In my experience it seems to be something that happens selectively when an issue is in the news (sometimes as WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, elsewhere simply WP:UNDUE/WP:VNOT/WP:NOTNEWS). In other cases (ie., Bell) it's central enough to a politician's career that it is appropriate.

I think there's a good case to formulate a RfC to get a wider community consensus on whether and when such background is WP:DUE. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Far right vs. right wing, etc.

User:~2026-10081-45 has been making a series of edits reverting the previous version. I've reverted to the last good version each time since this account is going around to other pages removing good info. However, I think it's time for this to end so I'm bringing this here. I've invited the user to use the talk page elsewhere, but they have so far refused.

The NYT source in question refers to an X account known as @EndWokeness that Mrs. Goldman allegedly liked. That account is supposedly run by white nationalist Jack Posobiec. So the use of "far right" appears to be supported here. However, it should be noted that the NYT article in question only uses the term "right-wing accounts" in general; this is somewhat a hallmark of the NYT, intentionally soft-pedaling and playing down any connections with the far right. (They've been doing this for many decades and it's nothing new. This goes way back and it's part of their media legacy and there's a lot written about how they do this. It's known for example, that the NYT played down the atrocities of the Nazis in their coverage of WWII, and didn't report on the holocaust or their victims for many years. Later, the promotion of right wing Reaganomics by the NYT in the 1980s got so bad that they even earned the dysphemistic pun the "Lies of Our Times" by the progressive left.)

In the second instance, the user changed "right-wing commentator Matt Walsh" to Daily Wire host Matt Walsh. This appears unsupported, as the NYT in this article calls Walsh a "right-wing conservative political commentator". So it appears that in both instances, the user is wrong. However, there is still the open question of whether to refer to the EndWokeness account associated with Jack Posobiec as far right. I think the way forward is to use the NYT wording for the general X accounts and then refer to the EndWokeness account in that same context as far right specifically. Thoughts? Viriditas (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

You "invited" me like 5 minutes ago, don't be misleading like I'm ignoring you for days- that's not very civil of you. Also your revision is undo a very good edit because your revision has "Matt Walsh" lead to a disambig page while my good edit directs to the actual person, proof you're not being very mindful in your edits. "Good info" is your personal opinion. The cited source doesn't even use the term "far right" so using that term violates Wikipedia:Verifiability- if the source doesn’t say it, the claim shouldn’t appear in the article. The NY Times articles doesn't even mention Posobiec, let alone claim he's behind that account, so that's Wikipedia:No original research. You say he's a "white nationalist", that's a disputed a libellous claim to put it mildly. Also putting that here is WP:COATRACK, as is your attacks on the NY Times. My edit is NPOV, respectful of BLP and sticks to what's in the source article. You seem to have a personal vendetta against the NYT & conservatives which has no place in this article. My edit sticks to the facts. ~2026-10081-45 (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your concerns about the link to Matt Walsh. I have now corrected it per your suggestion. The NYT source does mention EndWokeness, which is alleged to belong to Jack Posobiec per other sources, a far right figure. The question then becomes, is it relevant to mention this or link to it per the original editors who added this into the article? We need to hear from others. I would invite you to stop making legal threats and to refrain from commenting on the motivations of other editors. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Looking at this again, I think you are right that the far right term is problematic for several different reasons. One, the NYT doesn't use it here, and two, there's some confusion about whether to call it far right or alt right. Given that there is a larger controversy, the best thing to do is go with the source currently in use. I've therefore removed "far right" for now. Let me know if additional changes are needed. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Corinne controversy

@Muboshgu: Taking this to talk as requested. What do you mean by she is not his wife? The article describes her as such. I don't see an issue with my addition, but if you do, I'd appreciate if you could explain so I know what I did wrong. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I said he is not his wife. Otherwise this addition is WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad, I misread that. I think it's worth including, but I'll defer to your judgement because it isn't really that important either way. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Honest mistakes happen. Other editors edit warring, like User:Thatssosuess, is not okay. User:Dcpoliticaljunkie had also objected to this content. A discussion can be had to determine if there's a consensus to include or exclude. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with @Muboshgu that this does not belong in his biography. If it became a bigger issue in the campaign, it may be worth including in the election article. For now, it's WP:NOTNEWS and undue. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2026 (UTC)