Talk:Ryan Zinke/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Ryan Zinke. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Issues

This article seems to feature contradictory and/or inaccurate info about the subject's term in the Senate and at least a majority of the references cited are outdated. Packerfansam (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ryan Zinke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Military career section

The military career section, after this edit [1] is looking bloated to me. Can we reach a consensus on what in this section is notable enough to keep? I think much of it should be trimmed down for WP:DUEWEIGHT. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It is bloated. The important awards should be in the prose of the paragraph. They are almost all there already (if the new list is correct). The one glaring item missing from the prose that is in the new list is the Defense Meritorious Service Medal x2. The commendation medals in the prose probably do not need to be included as they are mid-level awards and should be removed. -- GB fan 16:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed the long list of non-notable awards and added some citations for the remaining awards. Any other issues you think need to be addressed? Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference broken

The link to http://www.dailyinterlake.com/members/jean-montana-harlow-petersen/article_34ad778b-908b-55f2-b371-544cbb2f6e51.html is unfortunately broken, it only displays a page with '1'. Could it be replaced with a link to internet archive? effeietsanders 11:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Also http://www.ryanzinke.com/ryan-zinke-announces-statewide-bus-tour/ is broken. effeietsanders 11:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Portrait

Seriously? Is that the only official portrait there is? Marquis de Faux (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is apparently the official portrait. It's weird (I thought it was a goof at first), but that's his official picture, so we go with it. Neutrality^talk 03:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

If we're referring to the off-centered formal one (and not the one with the gun), I've replaced it with a cropped, centered version. We are under no obligation whatsoever to use official portraits in their original form. --Animalparty! (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Zinke Degree from University of Oregon. I believe that the University of Oregon does not have a BS in Geology, but rather a degree in Earth Sciences.

Ryan Zinke Degree from University of Oregon. I believe that the University of Oregon does not have a BS in Geology, but rather a degree in Earth Sciences. This is a small point, however, if he is insisting on saying he is a Geologist he is incorrect. Please verify that my assertion is correct and change his profile.

Regards,

John Holliday Industrial Engineering PhD. jwholiday@cox.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.190.174 (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Wildfires

Zinke's fringe statements about the causes of wildfires belongs in this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The preverting the reversion violates WP:BRD. While it is covered by RS, and there are multiple RSs about the same event, it falls under NOTNEWS as it is to soon to determine whether the content is important over the long term. Moreover the subject made a contradictory statement not long after. Therefore, the content doesn't belong. Not yet anyway. If one wants to create a section about the subject's views of anthropomorphic global warming, than that is something that one can do.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Not only are you dismissing extensive coverage of this by RS (which easily passes WP:DUE by any reasonable standard) but making the patently absurd argument that the Secretary of the Interior spreading falsehoods and fringe talking points about the causes of wildfires - the same wildfires that fall under his official duties - the same wildfires that are causing deaths and catastrophic economic damage - is some kind of trivial and non-notable event. This is just whitewashing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The removal is no different from when content was removed by another editor on Richard Burr's article under the NOTNEWS claim. In that I followed BRD and no consensus was made, so the content was not re-added. But I will not begin an edit war by going beyond BRD, as it appears that Snooganssnoogans has done. Feel free to violate it. There is no consensus to re-added the content, as Snooganssnoogans has done.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The other user is wrong, and I've had content disputes with that user on similar issues in the past. What happens on other articles is irrelevant to what happens in this one. An editor erroneously removing content from one article does not give other editors carte blanche to erroneously remove content on other pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Support inclusion - Zinke's position on wildfire has received significant RS coverage and is directly related to his Interior position. –dlthewave ☎ 21:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Comparison to Tea Pot Dome scandal

Ryan Zinke#Comparison I think the ~~five~~ six sources I supplied should preempt further WP:reverts. See WP:BRD and WP:RS. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

But apparently they didn't. Lots of persons (not just me) think the scope, breadth and depth warrant the comparison. We don't have to wait fot the indictments to come down to recognize the controversy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The sources you added were all op-eds with the exception of a TIME article which explicitly says "Depending on what the investigations ultimately conclude, Zinke’s exact place in the history of Cabinets marred by scandal is to be determined". It's just absurd and a BLP violation to liken Zinke with what is perhaps the most prominent corruption scandal in history when Zinke has not even been charged with any corruption crimes, and when the sources are op-eds. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

That the comparisons were made is a fact 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Trump and Obama have been regularly likened to Hitler. That doesn't mean we add that into their Wikipedia articles. This is not complicated. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

five ==> six Fallacious argumentum ad absurdum 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the BLP noticeboard.[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment: (edit conflict - and Snoogans, I don't think this is a BLP issue.) Hello, friends. I noticed the two of you edit warring about this issue and decided to take a look at it. My opinion: remove this paragraph. (As always, just one editor's opinion; I'm not functioning as an admin here.) About the sources:

Time - names other cabinet members too and says "to be determined" about Zinke
Bloomberg item is labeled as opinion
Salon is an opinion site, and the item does not make a direct comparison with Teapot Dome, just mentions it.
Washington Monthly is an opinion site, and the item dismisses the Zinke issues as “a lot more petty” than Teapot Dome.
Observer item is labeled as opinion and implicates the entire cabinet, barely mentioning Zinke

My own opinion (Original Research): Zinke is nowhere near this level, at least not yet. No criminal charges have been filed against Zinke; Teapot Dome led to actual convictions and prison time. It is possible that Trump's cabinet as a whole may someday deserve this comparison, due to the repeated resignations of members under an ethical cloud, and there may yet be criminal indictments and convictions of some members. But for now, Zinke has not even been formally accused of anything, and his problems are merely one minor sideshow in the ongoing saga of the Trump administration, whereas Teapot Dome became the defining issue of the Harding administration. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I replied there. The comparison is a fact that is made in so many sources that it deserves coverage here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Since it is new material and has been challenged, it should not be restored without consensus. I am going to remove it for now, while discussion goes on. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The comparison of Ryan Zinke to Tea Pot Dome scandal has been made so often as to be trite. I put in six WP:RSs to prove it. That the compariiosn hs ben made is a fact. This is also being discussed here.

So you are wrong. But you do what you have to do. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources covering the fact that the comparison has been repeatedly made? Or do you just have opinion pieces making the comparison? Because the latter is not good enough to show significance. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If discussion at this page, or the BLP board, concludes that it should be included, then of course I or someone will restore it. Wikipedia is ruled by consensus. So far there are only ~~three~~ four people discussing - two (or possibly three) who think it should be left out, and one who thinks it should be included. With only ~~three~~ four people having input so far, that is not a clear or definite consensus either way. But it is certainly not a consensus to include, and that is what would be required to put it back. (Just to add that many, many comparisons and opinions are regularly made about public figures, but the fact that the comparisons and opinions are made does not obligate us to include them all.) -- MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

As to reliable sources discussing the fact that this is a notorious meme and how many times, I don't have them. WP:Civil says I can't say "that is a stupid question" (after all, I am not the president addressing a reporter), but I can say that it is a 'moving target'.

Here are four more reliable sources:

1. Cria, Bryan (April 11, 2017). "Making the Teapot Dome Scandal Relevant Again! President Trump can learn from Harding's disaster". University of Virginia. Retrieved December 19, 2018.

2.Press, Bill (2018). Trump Must Go: The Top 100 Reasons to Dump Trump (and One to Keep Him) (Kindle ed.). New York: Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin's Press. p. 113. ISBN 9781250306487.

3. Benen, Steve (October 24, 2017). "Private contracts for work in Puerto Rico raise eyebrows". MSNBC. Retrieved December 19, 2018.

4. Krugman, Paul (June 7, 2018). "Corruption Hits the Small Time". The New York Times.

I didn't restore them to the article, but they are irrefutably there For your consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The fact of the repeated comparison does mean that it should be discussed. You folks say you want more sources (since it isn't notable without them), and now you folks say you want less, or none and the subject expurgated. Hobson's choice. Make up your minds. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Or see Morton's fork.7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The fact of the repeated comparison does mean that it should be discussed. Not necessarily. Both Obama and Trump have repeatedly been compared to all kinds of people and things; we don’t put the comparisons in their biographies. This Teapot Dome comparison is not really very widespread and has almost no neutral reliable sources, despite your constant search for some. My analysis of your original sources is above. Of the new sources you provided, all are opinion, and only the NYT is what is generally considered a neutral reliable source. But that's the news department; your NYT source is an op-ed which begins by saying “Of course Donald Trump is corrupt.” - is that your idea of a reliable neutral source? BTW that op-ed’s point is that the five cabinet secretaries he mentions (Zinke gets a fraction of a sentence) are NOT very much like Teapot Dome. I gather you are not actually reading these sources, but simply listing everything that comes up in a Google search. This is not gaining you any traction. As for what I want: the subject omitted from the article. I have not yet seen any evidence that it has any more claim for inclusion than the meme that Obama is a Muslim, or the fact that Trump has been compared to… fill in a dozen blanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Or What about Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Oh, we seem to have a whole article on that subject. Just sayin... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, all I particularly wanted is evidence in this edit. That was removed, which begat the subsequent edit, this discussion and the controversy. Parenthetically, Streisand effect personified. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Just a comment that while I still think this should not be included in this Zinke article, I have agreed with 7&6's insertion of a section at the Teapot Dome scandal article pointing out how Teapot Dome has been used a benchmark for comparison with other scandals. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I certainly think it should not be included. The entire Trump matter might reasonably be considered to have some analogies with Teapot Dome, but this doesn't apply to individual people involved in it. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Cleaning up the Business ventures section

The current iteration of the article has the following text that seems very non-encyclopedic:

The Public Company STWA was part of an elaborate fraudulent scheme in the early 2000s pitching fake technology devices and posting fake results to inflate its stock price. STWA received formal complaints from the SEC and was forced to stop marketing it fake devices while removing its top leadership. Soon after Cecil Kyte was announced CEO of STWA, now QS Energy, and hyped its new pipeline flow technology following the fraudulent tactics of its old leadership, publishing fake news and completely false claims. Soon after Zinke's exit from the company in 2014, the stock dropped sharply again as it was clear its pipeline flow technology was not producing results as stated and never would. QS Energy remains a penny stock to this day despite Zinke and his pals making off with millions from the scheme while investors lost everything.[35] After his departure as secretary of the interior he’s now joining new ventures in the energy sector in similar advisory roles.[36]

I'm not sure how to rewrite this--the SEC filing seems notable enough to mention, but not with this kind of language. Can a more experienced writer help out? 136.56.11.3 (talk) 00:37, 8 April 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:

Logo Naval Special Warfare Development Group.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Net worth in infobox

I removed the net worth parameter from the infobox, as the parameter has now been deprecated. If anyone wants to add that content elsewhere in the article, you can find what I removed in this edit. Firefangledfeathers 04:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)