Talk:John Huppenthal

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Timmyjohns.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

This article was nominated for deletion on June 3, 2005; the consensus was keep. For discussion, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John huppenthal.

Please note this blog mention[edit]

http://precinct134.blogspot.com/2006/11/senator-huppenthal-youre-busted.html

It would appear that the subject of the article has been editing his own article...

I believe it to be true however it is not appropriate to reveal information (i.e. real names) of people assoicated with IPs. --Tbeatty 07:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this external reference is appropriate - Since we are saying that Huppenthal did edit this article, the reader can infer the IP address he used anyway. In any case, it is in the history of this talk page.--BenBurch 08:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I restored this section after it was blanked by User:Greenfields --BenBurch 03:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which he continues to do... --BenBurch 01:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting quite annoying. He moved this page to Don't move, and then blanked it. He's also doing stuff to Merit_pay. I've asked him to come and comment on his removals here, but if this continues we may need to resort to Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Procedure. Copysan 03:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I marked Don't move for deletion. --BenBurch 04:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he's edited it, but I don't think it could be called an autobiography. The article is largely accurate (I live in the same town, my IP is 68.226.97.243). Jimbo edited his page and it doesn't have the tag. Is there a guideline on expiring the tag? --Tbeatty 05:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, SOURCE all of the statements, and they can stay. Jimbo gets away with what Jimbo wants to get away with. In general you should never, ever edit your own article. That is the definition of autobiography. --BenBurch 05:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote it and sourced it. It's no longer an autobiography. --Tbeatty 07:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. I'll be re-adding some of the material the subject apparently wanted to have expunged as time permits.--BenBurch 08:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, http://www.schmuckfest.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=343841&module_id=4050 is not an acceptable source for this material. WP:LIVING sets a high standard, and a blog never meets it unless it cites acceptable primary or secondary sources for this information, which this does NOT. I'm *not* trying to rain on your parade here, but that is how it happens.--BenBurch 08:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a blog, it's a charitable organization and the bio is about one of it's members. It's perfectly acceptable. Numerous bio's on WP base information on bios posted by organizations. Please replace it. Tbeatty 09:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Id like to point out that the page is a secondary or tertiary source. Everything on that page can be found from primary sources (ie legislative records, which should be publicily accssible) and more crediible secondary sources like newspapers or magazines with a good amouont of circulation. Copysan 10:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and the blog or charitable organization or whatever it is doesn't cite its sources. Let's find the primary sources. (As I have done in citing his legislative web site.)--BenBurch 18:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are a primary source about their membership. They do not require sources. They can be cited about their own membership. --Tbeatty 22:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it concerns his legislative record, there are much better sources than a club. If it concerns his family or his personal history, there are much better sources than a club bio page because the bio page will most likely be whitewashed. If it concerns his membership in the club, then this is a primary source. Copysan 22:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may search out additional sources and use them. But this is a membership bio about a member and as such is a legitimate source. Please don't delete the sourced materal but feel free to add to it with other sources. Only the facts were taken from the bio and there is no whitewasing in the Wikipedia article version of the facts. --Tbeatty 22:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it is wrong information, but I do not accept that a club has the standing to create an acceptable source. --BenBurch 23:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly does regarding it's members. Are you saying the DNC wouldn't be a reliable source for information? That is simply an organization with members. This organization is a non-political fundraisers and Huppenthal is a member. Definitely meets WP:RS guidelines. --Tbeatty 18:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. No fact checking whatsoever is implied by publication by such an organization. That is the essential issue with WP:RS. Those things that qualify are where there are an editorial role which has some reputation for fact checking. That is why self-published sources are not accepted. And this club you posted is essentially a self-published source since it too whatever the Hon. John Huppenthal sent them and just reprinted it. How can that ever make the information RELIABLE? Look, I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, but can we please find the same information from a newspaper article? --BenBurch 20:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. Everything on the web is "self published". Primary sources, which this is, are allowed as factual information about themselves. They are allowed because this type of information (i.e. biographical data) is self-provided even for secondary sources such as newpapers. There is a reason why primary sources are allowed and this is it. If you think the facts need a better source, then feel free to find it, but the current source meets WP:RS --Tbeatty 07:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A statement in the article makes no sense: "As a City Council member, Huppenthal quickly developed a reputation.[2]" Reputation for what? The source is his own personal biography, written by a Mr. Schmuck. It's a puff piece and has no business here. The final section of this entry refers to a recorded interview apparently showing Huppenthal was unaware of the effect of a vote he made for reducing an education program by 90%. The article claims Mr Huppenthal left the interview (with a high school student) to get information, returning later, and claims that section of the video was removed. There is no support for this claim in the references, nor does Huppenthal indicate that is what he is doing when he abruptly leaves the room.184.98.50.2 (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recall[edit]

Did Huppenthal ever do a rebuttal to the accusations made by the recall effort? If so, we should summarize that and place it after the quote to provide some balance Copysan 10:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'll look for it.--BenBurch 12:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need. The recall didn't even make it to the ballot. The recall deserves a single sentence. Recalls that don't make the ballot aren't usually covered in politician bio's. --Tbeatty 03:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Tbeatty and J. Huppenthal: This is not a "politician's bio", and isn't supposed to read like one. It's an article on Wiki. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Greenfields[edit]

This person has been given an indefinite vandal block. --BenBurch 17:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder I didnt notice any blankings today Copysan 21:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted personal info[edit]

I deleted personal info on where his children attend school, and the church he attends. That's personal info inappropriate for the article.

'Schmuckfest' a RS??? LOL! Riiiiight! - F.A.A.F.A. 06:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is very reliable and a non-political site as it is a charitable organization. The information is relevant and is appropriate for a biography. --Tbeatty 04:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Huppenthal...[edit]

Yes, I have heard of him. I have an American friend that goes to the school he is on board of...but he is NOT CHAIRMAN! In fact, the principle of the school is. He is but a parent on the board... It's unessecary to call him by what he is not, don't you think? Hmm... --Nyx Abbing 19:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John[edit]

Hey link here unicorn cheese! --Nyx Abbing 19:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest?[edit]

As per the "Controversy" section, the subject of this article has form as an internet troll, having described the recipients of food stamps as "lazy pigs".

Anonymous edits have been made to this article by 75.172.236.190, 70.176.185.126 and 98.174.192.228 which look pretty slippery. These IPs are all of residential providers in the Phoenix area.

None of these edits give a reason for the change, they use some dodgy sources, such as blogs, and they all serve to cast Huppenthal in a more positive light.

The person who originally suspected the WP:COI was not me, but /u/kap77 on Reddit. [[dead link] archive link].

I am not certain of the best way to proceed, but I wanted to add the Template:COI tag to ensure that these edits do not go overlooked. I would suggest that every anonymous edit to this page needs to be audited, and the muck put back in, but I don't know if I've got the time to do that myself.

I hope that the addition of Template:COI tag and this Talk section was the appropriate way to proceed. Stroller (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the template and talk section discussion was the appropriate way to proceed.
The IP edits you cite (or, rather that Reddit cited) are around 4 years old! Look at the recent edits: There's no evidence of any pattern of COI editing. There is, however, a recent flurry of edits by confirmed editors, probably due to the Reddit effect. No problem with that: It's helped clean up the article a bit. (Which is pretty amusing, considering that Huppenthal is, as of yesterday, no longer in office.) In any event, I'm going to remove the COI template, not because you were wrong to have posted it, but because the 4 year old COI edits have now been noticed, and dealt with by several other editors. So, it's all good. If any new COI editing pops up, the template can be re-added at that point. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP In Phoenix keeps deleting a controversy[edit]

The sentences: In June 2010, Huppenthal was interviewed by a high-school student, Keith Wagner. A cut of the interview video was posted online that cast Huppenthal in a negative light. The cut showed him apparently contradicting himself and then walking out of the interview.

Referring to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL1CgptlYZU

Keep getting deleted. Possibly by the office of John Huppenthal given the IP related to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.241.51 (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need a better reference than that. See WP:RSRaquel Baranow (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP applies more than anything here. Please do not reinsert it without a reliable source; it's not like youtube hoaxes aren't a thing and we need to be cognizant of that. Deadbeef 22:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The YouTube video is an interview with Huppenthal. That's a RS for Huppenthal's public statements. There are some additional RS sources relating to the interview, so this "controvery" can probably be included properly -- though I think the writing is going to need a little bit of work to make it NPOV, with the appropriate weight. Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no real controversy here. I went to the trouble to write up the issue, with proper citations. But, when I got all done, there was nothing of substance. Just an awkward interview between a high school journalist and a politician. Following is the write up, which I'm not going to post in the article, but which I include here just in case this issue rears its head again some day:

In 2010, as part of a High School television production class project, Keith Wagner interviewed Huppenthal, then a State Senator and running for the office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction, on the topic of budget cuts for Career and Technical Education (“CTE”). Huppenthal stated that “these are critically important programs,” and decried the budget cuts to them as being “simply horrendous.” Wagner then reminded Huppenthal that he had voted for a legislative bill to cut $550 million from the Arizona Department of Education's budget, with “a lot of that” cut being in CTE, then asked what factors let to that decision. Huppenthal did not address the question, but, when pressed, walked out of the interview.[1]

An edited 2-minute version of the interview, posted by a third party on YouTube in June, 2010, created controversy, by implying that Huppenthal did not return to complete the interview. According to Wagner, Huppenthal did return to complete the interview. Wagner told the Arizona Republic that the “two-minute version did not accurately represent his interview with Huppenthal,” and that he believed Huppenthal was “unprepared for his questions and confused about some of the facts related to his vote.” [2]

The Arizona Republic reported that “Huppenthal acknowledged that he did not remember the details of the vote when initially questioned by the student, but said he knew the ramifications when the vote occurred,” and said "You have to remember I was right in the middle of a (budget) tornado at the time.” According to the Arizona Republic, the legislative bill which Wagner had asked Huppenthal about cut $550 million from education funding, including $11 million from vocational education programs such as Wagner's TV production class. “Ultimately, much of the money, including that for vocational education, was restored with federal stimulus funds or other sources.” [3]

Fearofreprisal (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked in the past to make sure this section stayed in, but I'm starting to think it's a non-issue. AZCentral and minor political blogs blew up for a day or two when it happened because a high school student making a politician look foolish is funny. In the long run, the careers of politicians (especially local and state) are filled with these types of moments. I'm not sure we need to document them. --Laser brain (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still agree: This item is a non-issue, and shouldn't be included. I doubt that the IP editor who is reinserting it in the article will come here to discuss it, though. Cinteotl (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HB 2281[edit]

I've noticed that several articles mention this law. I don't see an article about it. Should someone who has studied the matter write one? Jim.henderson (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on John Huppenthal. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 02:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Huppenthal&oldid=1207673076"