Talk:Kevin de León

California Assembly Bill 962 (2009)

Untitled

Why do you keep removing the Notable Legislation section. You authored AB962, the court found it to be "unconstitutionaly vague". Thats fact. Own it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.110.191 (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering the same thing. It is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bill_962_%282009%29 But the main author's page does not incude any mention of this bill? Why is this? I hope politics is not getting in the way of knowledge.

quality reporters being removed

hello - this detail is being removed without good reason imo - in is the story of quality writers, such as http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-kevin-de-leon-20140619-story.html#page=1- https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kevin_de_Le%C3%B3n&diff=616061573&oldid=616033356 - http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2014/01/05/3424401/kevin-de-leon-aims-to-move-past.html#storylink=cpy - http://votesmart.org/candidate/biography/59926/kevin-de-leon#.U7sG4xZeclI - http://www.sacbee.com/2014/01/05/6046614/kevin-de-leon-aims-to-move-past.html - what is wrong with these sources - why is this - please explain Mosfetfaser (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

As I've already explained, I reverted them as WP:UNDUE and promotionally worded. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

C.Fred you were a part of this. Care to join? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The extent of my involvement before was fixing a capitalization error. That said, I looked at today's edits, and based on what's in the article, I changed the characterization of one story. De Leon only denied involvement in one of the sources; nowhere did it say he was cleared.[1] —C.Fred (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

story add on

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kevin_de_Le%C3%B3n&diff=prev&oldid=617928216

On June 19, Senator de León was elected by his colleagues President Pro-Tempore of the California State Senate, effective October 15, 2014.

is this ok?

http://armenpress.am/eng/news/766507/de-leon-elected-president-pro-tem-of-california-state-senate.html

Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

written story - https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kevin_de_Le%C3%B3n&diff=618020931&oldid=617929945 Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Ghost gun incident

The passages about the 1/13/14 gaffe when de León talked about "ghost guns" that fire "30 magazine clips in half a second" keep getting deleted. The incident was important and notable, both to the national debate over gun control and to Senator de León. I think it would be wise to add maybe just a sentence or two about the incident. Some of the passages deleted were clearly biased attempts to mock the Senator, but I think that a very brief mention could be written in an objective way and would add relevant information to the article. There are also numerous sources that confirm the occurrence of the gaffe. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.221.144.98 (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@107.221.144.98 I also think a brief mention should be added. Oktayey (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Controversies section

The current controversies section reads as follows:

“ Kevin de León has denied involvement in an ongoing scandal of illegal payments/bribes, and federal investigation of his fellow CA Senator Ronald S. Calderon. Kevin de León denied involvement in the scandal, in December 2013. As of July 2014, de León has not been charged with any wrongdoing in relation to the Calderon case. A letter was released by the assistant U.S. attorney in charge of the case reporting that de León, "is a witness, not a target in the federal investigation." California's political watchdog has decided not to investigate de León, saying there is no evidence he played a role in the $25,000 payment to Calderon's brother's group. In 2013, de Leon was involved in a junket to Norway and Sweden paid for by the California Foundation for Economy and Environment which has paid thousands of dollars over the years for such junkets that do seem to result in any legisation. ”

The first "controversy" does not belong in the biography since he has not been charged with any wrongdoing. The second "controversy" is also not really biographical since legislators go on junkets all the time. I am hereby deleting this section. Victor Victoria (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Personal Life

It appears his daughter is using his page for self-promotion, edits should be made. I'm not sure to what extent children should be included in to wikipedia articles and to what extent that it should occur. I feel that what she wrote on her father's page crosses the line into using it for personal gain.

Dear Leon's Senate testimony is more political than personal. Removing it but it could be added back after reworking in a different section. Loyl1 (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Addressing article balance - May 2017

This article has been flagged for disputable neutrality since November 2016, and reading it it becomes clear why pretty quickly. This is a Democrat state senator whose legislation primarily addresses renewable energy, affirmative consent, immigration enforcement, gun control, and regulation to protect low-wage workers. However, of these only gun control and consent are reflected in the issues section of the article, and the gun control text that's there now reflects only legislation that was vetoed or struck down in court, none of the legislation that was signed into law. Furthermore, some of the citations in this piece cite right-wing blogs of thin credibility such as The Blaze.

Within the issues heading, the current subheadings are currently "Gun control," "Yes Means Yes," "Familial Illegal Immigration Remarks," "Janet Nguyen's Ejection from Senate Chambers," and "Accusations Toward Trump Administration of 'White Supremacy'". I propose headings more reflective of his work as a legislator.

New headings would be

• Energy and the environment: Bills that passed - SB 350, SB 535, SB 1275; current bills SB 100, SB 49, 50 51, SB 584)
• Wages and retirement savings (SB 1234 for retirement savings, and SB 3 for a $15/hour minimum wage)
• Illegal Immigration - SB 54 (Current sanctuary state bill, highly controversial), AB 60 (drivers licenses for undocumented people).
• Affirmative Consent - Existing "Yes Means Yes" section
• Gun control / gun safety (Existing content pared down to focus on legislation, as well as addressing
• Public opposition to Trump administration - Existing section about "Accusations toward Trump administration..." with more context about the Mr. de Leon's other public opposition to the Trump administration.

I'll start working on writing some thoroughly-cited copy for the new sections, but wanted to give a bit of context as we begin the process of bringing some more neutrality to this article.

NealJMD (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Name

Hi 24.10.12.152. The name "Kevin de León" is not an "error". No, it's not his legal name, but it is the name he's professionally and commonly known by. Per WP:COMMONNAME, that's the one Wikipedia is concerned with. Please stop changing his name to "Kevin Leon". I have added mention of his legal name to the page, which I trust should satisfy you. Kawnhr (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Sections "Declined"

I also declined. Am I allowed to add my name?

IOW, why is this not blatant NPOV/non-notable? 91.10.56.218 (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't even know what you mean. The word "declined" isn't used once on the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Controversy Sections Deleted

As it stands, the current article is written like an advertisement for a political candidate and does not include any mention of scandals or controversies which have received considerable media attention. These issues need to be mentioned somehow, if not through a "controversy" section. I'd suggest changing "Political Positions" to a section about his tenure as an elected official to include controversial actions.--ILovetoEditWikis (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Reading this article about Tony Mendoza, I don't believe that belongs on this article at all. It's a scandal of Mendoza's, not de Leon's. The fact that they used to room together does not make it reflect on de Leon. Per WP:BRD, I don't appreciate that you reinserted the material after waiting, what, 12 hours for a response here? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate the clarification on WP:BRD as I'm new to editing. I was hoping adding the content back would make it clearer that I'm attempting to move the article to a more neutral place, instead of a it reading like an advertisement. You mention the Mendoza scandal as not relevant, yet all other scandals and controversies were also removed. The Mendoza, Cadiz and nepotism scandals received significant media coverage and should be mentioned somewhere in this article. In particular the Mendoza scandal directly implicated de Leon as one of the incidents was alleged to occur in de Leon's own home. Also, de Leon killed legislation (and then had his political allies kill additional legislation) that would have allowed Mendoza's victims to come forward sooner. Mendoza and de Leon were close friends and political allies. There has also been significant media coverage of this and its implication on de Leon's political future . I respectfully ask that we find a way to make this page less biased and discuss the totality of de Leon's political career, not just highlight his top accomplishments.--ILovetoEditWikis (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

There has still been no justification given for why major controversies regarding Cadiz and the nepotism scandals were removed. I recommend adding them back as they received major media coverage and are relevant to this article. Unless someone can make a case for why they should be excluded, I will add them back.--ILovetoEditWikis (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I have to re-read the Cadiz thing to refresh my memory. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Article Flow

The flow of this article is awkward and not consistent with the the vast majority of wikipedia articles about living politicians. I suggest the following sub headers that go in chronological order

1. Early Life
2. Professional Life
3. State Assembly
4. State Senate
5. Personal Life
6. References
7. External Links

This is more consistent with articles of living elected officials. Current accomplishments should be under the appropriate subheader. --ILovetoEditWikis (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment Controversy

There has been debate on this page before, but a conclusion was never reached on the inclusion of Kevin de Leon's role in the state sexual harassment controversy. I strongly feel this should be included. One of the high profile incidents was alleged to occur in de Leon's own home between a young woman and de Leon's roommmate and friend, State Senator Tony Mendoza. De Leon also killed legislation (and then had his political allies kill additional legislation) that would have allowed Mendoza's victims to come forward sooner, and a cover up gas been alleged. Mendoza and de Leon were close friends and political allies. There has also been significant media coverage of this and its implication on de Leon's political future. De Leon later turned against his former friend and demanded his resignation from the Senate.

It seems wrong to exclude this story from this article, considering the large media attention it has brought. It is the fifth result (and first news story) when you Google "Kevin de Leon." I vote to include a description of this issue under the State Senate section of the page. --ILovetoEditWikis (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Was he aware of it? Was he complicit in covering it up? Doesn't seem to be the case. This is scandal-mongering and I point you to WP:NOTNEWS as a reason not to include this. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

There is significant evidence that de León both knew about the incidents, one occurred in his own home, and he tried to cover them up by killing legislation that would have aided whistleblowers. --ILovetoEditWikis (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of de León's knowledge of the incidents that occurred in his own home, major publications noted that he and his allies killed whistleblower legislation. Activists also criticized him doing doing so. It has been a major source of news during his campaign. That information should be included in this article.ILovetoEditWikis (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

These incidents and the controversy over the legislation killed by de León belong in the article. As I mentioned and sited in my previous edits they have been a major source of news and controversy on the campaign. Unless someone can justify why they are not newsworthy I will be adding them back. ILovetoEditWikis (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree that this section should be included in the article, but the wording of the previous version was quite misleading and not representative of what was reported in the sources (for example, I couldn't find anything in the sources that affirmatively stated that de León was personally responsible for "killing the bill"). I think the section could probably use further revisions and clarifications. Notyourwitch (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Attorneys representing Senator Mendoza's accusers also argued that they had reported harassment to State Senate officials several times in September 2017 before detailing their allegations in a meeting on Sept. 22 — when they were promptly fired by being handed a letter on Rules Committee letterhead. What does this have to do with de Leon? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Nepotism section

Per the Wikipedia article on Nepotism, Nepotism is based on favour granted to relatives in various fields, including business, politics, entertainment, sports, religion and other activities. Since the allegations are that his consultant hired his daughter, this is not nepotism, since de Leon had nothing to do with the hiring decision. This is called having connections, and it is a standard way to get a job for anybody. Nepotism is when the person doing the hiring is related to the person being hired. 47.148.109.121 (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

"De León's 12% was the lowest ever recorded for a candidate who advanced to the general election since California instituted its jungle primary rules in 2016."

California's jungle primary was enacted by voters in November 2010 and applied to all elections after that, so pegging it to 2016 is inaccurate.

Is there a source for the claim about De León having the lowest vote share? It doesn't clarify if it's only referring to US Senate races, but if it is, it's accurate; he received 12.07% of the 2018 primary vote, while Loretta Sanchez received 17.9% of the 2016 primary vote and Elizabeth Emken received 12.6% of the 2012 primary vote. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Subject was repeatedly unable to correctly recite the pledge of allegiance

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-01-26/kevin-de-leon-pledge-of-allegiance

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/la-city-councilman-kevin-de-le-c3-b3n-stumbles-through-pledge-of-allegiance/ar-BB1d7Zvn

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/los-angeles-city-council-democrat-butchers-pledge-of-allegiance TuffStuffMcG (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

"him and other council members making racist, homophobic, and derogatory remarks was leaked"

As far as I can tell, De Leon's major foul on the call was to say that a fellow city council member treated his black adopted son like a designer handbag. Certainly derogatory, but racist and/or homophobic?

Were there any comments that De Leon himself made that were overtly racist or homophobic?

Per WP:BLP I think we have to be very cautious here to make sure we don't imply that De Leon himself was responsible for comments made by others in the call.

Can we revise the sentence to read something like "him making derogatory comments about other council members, while others on the call made racist and homophobic remarks"? NickCT (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that what he said was objectively not racist, and as far as the homophobic part, that seems like inference on the part of the commentators, so whether or not it stays it should it least be clarified that it's a subjective assumption on his motives. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)