Talk:Dan Huberty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dan Huberty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Point of View[edit]

Writing about politicians for a newspaper is a developed skill; that's why newspapers and magazines are so expensive. Writing about politicians from a neutral point of view for an encyclopedia is so rare that salesmen hardly every come to your door anymore.

Congressman Able is in favor of blue skies. Or is he opposed to red skies? It makes a difference. The language on this page does not exhibit a neutral point of view WP:NPOV For that reason, there is a tag on the Dan Huberty page. I will watch this page, if you have questions. Regards Rhadow (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Videotape Controversy has been removed. It must not be replaced in its current form. Rhadow (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lspillman, Jonathan A Jones, and Rhadow are correct. The "Videotape Controversy" section was a clear violation of the Biographies of living persons policy. PoliticalPoster007, Clorox, and all other editors of this article, you are now on notice that as per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions# Current areas of conflict and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. That definiation clearly includes this article, and all editors of it are now on notice that Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions applies here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kinda lost here. What was it that made the Videotape Controversy section a problem? --Clorox (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few problems. First, there are poor sources: Empower Texans, Breitbart, The Blaze. See WP:IRS. Sources for biographies of living persons require more care than other articles in this area WP:BLPSOURCES. The poster of the YouTube video appears to be anonymous and YouTube videos are dangerous as they can be edited. This is also tabloid material. Unless this incident resulted in some action or remained in the news for a significant period of time, it normally wouldn’t be considered as encyclopedic WP:NOTTABLOID, WP:RECENTISM. And, I’ve never seen any article here linking to a drunk person, or any video of any living person. Objective3000 (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree with the above. If a video of someone having their buttons pushed by a partisan hack gets mainstream coverage, then maybe we would have material with which to work. But we don't. -Location (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The citation to WP:IRS is a misdirection. There's no dispute that the underlying event happened. There's no accusation that this video was falsified or "selectively edited" and, from what I've seen, the issue isn't that he was drunk per se, it's that he was fighting with staff, trying to start a fight, and being protected by police from embarassing himself while inside the Capitol building. It is salacious, but that's also why we're talking about it. Encyclopedias aren't for dry recitations of voting scores, they're to include things that are of interest. This video brought out a primary challenger and continues to dog Huberty's career, it's referenced in every standalone article about him. It's not about the drinking, it's about what his actions while drunk say about him. If you can't understand the distinction, you lack the analytic skill to edit here. Flatoncsi (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If what you say is true then you will have no difficulty finding reliable secondary sources that report it. Primary sources are not sufficient. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This guy is a state rep, the NYT isn't going to cover it. The sources are going to be local and won't be national or something you recognize. But you know that anyway, you're just being dishonest. Flatoncsi (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm just following WP:BLPSOURCES which is a WP:POLICY. If you don't plan to edit in line with core policies then your time here on Wikipedia is likely to be brief. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But you know that anyway, you're just being dishonest. Didn’t you just get off a block for personal attacks hours ago? I’d suggest you be more careful in comments about other editors. Objective3000 (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

State names[edit]

Please spell out the names of US states (and any sub-national areas for other countries, too), and wiki-link them on first mention. Do not use postal abbreviations. (that is use Texas not TX.) As WP:NOTPAPER we don't need to save the space (In a tight table different considerations might apply) and the names (esp with the links) will be clearer to people not resident in the US, and perhaps even to some not living in the relevant part of the US. Wikipedia should be aimed at a global audience as much as possible. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings[edit]

It's not clear to me that ratings from primary sources such as the Project Vote Smart website really have any place in this article unless they have been reported in reliable secondary sources. It's not at all clear how one might select which ratings to report from a page which lists dozens of individual ratings on an enormous range of issues. I'm therefore somewhat bemused at Azerorth92's apparent insistence on including these. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jonathan A Jones -- This page has been troublesome for a couple of months. Editors have insisted on inserting the subject's religion, and what his birthplace is -- as if all of America is not full of carpetbaggers. Great point. No citations from Empower Texas. Rhadow (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed: if recall correctly I came here following an appeal at BLP/N, so I'm aware there are problem here. Current behaviour looks like meat puppetry rather than sock puppetry given the variable level of competence among the editors. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan A Jones has consistently removed large amounts of content ("ratings"). Project Vote Smart is a credible site in accordance with wiki guidelines and is used in the "ratings" section for countless other politician's pages. I am confused by Jonathan A Jones and his insistence on deleting this information, which leads me to believe the user has a conflict of interest or is committing an NPOV violation with regards to this page. When I put in the ratings, I put both good and bad scores. If it is coming across as selective ratings, I would be more than happy to add more ratings (both positive and negative). That being said, there is no legitimate reason to delete the ratings section altogether. If these ratings get deleted, one must also delete every other rating section within numerous politician's pages.

It's not clear to me that ratings from primary sources such as the Project Vote Smart website really have any place in any article of this kind unless they have been reported in reliable secondary sources, so yes, if similar sections are found on other pages they should also be deleted unless they are properly sourced. And on another point that's now the second allegation of bad faith with Azeroth92 has made in the last few hours. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan A Jones First of all, your editing history and reasoning have left me suspicious, so I have every right to voice my opinion on what I believe may be a violation of the wikipedia rules. Second of all, let me explain to you how Project Vote Smart works. During each legislative session each organization (YCT, NRA, Conservation League of America, NARLA Pro-Choice, etc.) Takes a stance of "yea" or "nay" for every piece of legislation that makes to the house/committee. They then compare each individual politician's voting record with their own checklist for what they believe to be the "best" voting (according to their own organization). They then create a score based off of the ratio of the amount of "correct" and "incorrect" votes (with regards to each organizations own personal agenda). The voting history with any bill can be found on the following website http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/BillNumber.aspx which is what the organizations use to see if individual politicians have voted in accordance with their own ideology. These organizations then post their respective "scores" on their websites, which Project Vote Smart pulls data from to publish the scores. Now that you have a better understanding of the Website/source, explain to me how it is not a valid or credible source

This is the second time today that you have cast aspersions against other editors. This is a serious infraction, particularly in light of your constant edit warring, and that this is article falls under discretionary sanctions for post-1932 politics. [1]. Objective3000 (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Objective3000 Constant edit warring? You mean my one warning with regards to this page. In addition, I have a right to express my concern for violation of wiki rules. As I'm sure you know, any user has the complete right to make a notation of instance they believe are in violation of wikipedia's rules. In addition, I have still yet to hear a reason why Project Vote Smart is not a credible source, especially after my explanation. Care to explain why you believe it is?

Azeroth92: a little research would have told you that I have been a Wikipedia editor for more than 11 years, during which time I have made almost 6000 edits on a huge range of topics, including creating 27 articles, and have been awarded rollback rights by an administrator. By comparison you have been on Wikipedia for less than a month, during which time you have made fewer than 100 edits, have acquired a string of warnings on your user page, have had one of your edits permanently deleted under WP:SUPPRESS, and haven't yet learned how to sign comments on talk pages. You might wish to tread a little more cautiously before flinging allegations and making patronising explanations of Wikipedia policy which you all too clearly do not really understand. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had a great joke here that some killjoy admins deleted because Jonathan Jones complained. Even though it isn't in line with the deletion policy, fine. But if anyone reading was curious, it was pretty solid. Flatoncsi (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan A Jones Like you said, you've been here for 11 years. So please explain to me how Project Vote Smart is not credible considering my explanation. You have not addressed the original issue, but rather you are only commenting on your seniority over me.

The addition has been challenged -- rather heavily. On an article like this, it cannot be restored without consensus. You have no consensus. Objective3000 (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring, drunk or not, garbage stories; primary and secondary sources[edit]

{{BLP noticeboard}}

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dan_Huberty&oldid=1202829227"