Jump to content

Talk:Randy Hopper

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

Claims of non-district residency and mistress

[edit]

Numerous anonymous IP and "new user" edits have sought to introduce allegations that this Wisconsin public figure no longer lives in his legislative district, but resides only in the state's capital with his "mistress." The references cited for this claim have been blog sources and/or sites of questionable neutrality and credibility. Until irreproachable sourcing can be obtained that proves this individual does not have a legal residence in his district and/or lives with a "mistress," editors should refrain from introducing such content into the narrative, reference or external links of this entry. Wikipedia seeks to remain a neutral informational source, free of potentially libelous content and/or content that reflects bias or opinion. SWMNPoliSciProject (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would a letter from his estranged wife to a Milwaukee TV station be irreproachable enough?
TODAY'S TMJ4 received a letter from a woman claiming to be Randy Hopper's wife, Alysia Hopper. The letter arrived a letterhead envelope from Alysia Hopper's business. The letter claims Randy Hopper, "started an affair in January 2010 with a then 25 year old Republican aide." It claims "Randy moved out" and "now lives mostly in Madison." - WTMJ-TV
Entrybreak (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was an old user who also did such an edit, and had it reverted. I'm not sure what the limit needs to be on sourcing, but it's been quite well-reported in local news (though not national.) I've restricted my edit to saying that his wife signed the petition; I hope that's not considered libelous, and the 10 citations are enough this time. Seleucus (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seleucus did an excellent job referencing the current claims against Randy Hopper. Since most of the references/sources cited are widely recognized as valid news sources, the addition should stand. Seleucus' documentation is what was necessary to validate this addition, especially so in lieu of the personal nature of the allegations and the potential "fallout" for the entry subject. SWMNPoliSciProject (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm unsure about is at what point it becomes acceptable to mention the part about living with a mistress in Madison, since pretty much all of the sources have that as the main focus, but it's a far more potentially libelous allegation. In addition, WP:Citation overkill is a bit of an issue Seleucus (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the circumstantial evidence so far points toward the claim of a mistress. Once the woman's name was revealed, her employer scrubbed all references to her on their website and later confirmed she had been fired. Plus there has been no denial by either her or Sen. Hopper. But, yeah, it should probably stay out of the article until there's some sort of solid confirmation. Entrybreak (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background section

[edit]

I added an background section to the article. The information came from the 2009-2010 Wisconsin Blue Book. The info is not online at the Wisconsin Historical Society yet. Thanks-RFD (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PPP polling

[edit]

Public Policy Polling is an independent polling firm, just like Gallup, Zogby, SurveyUSA, etc. They are not push polls. In this case, Daily Kos sponsored the PPP poll, which of course should be noted in the article, but that does NOT mean that the poll was conducted on the Daily Kos website (it was not) or of a sample of Daily Kos readers (also not). In fact, PPP is better than average at predicting the actual results of elections, per Fivethirtyeight [1], which would certainly not be the case if they were polling a biased sample. Arbor8 (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Girlfriend patronage allegations

[edit]

I would like to know why the name has been removed from the article several times. She has been mentioned as being involved in different Hopper events 1) Patronage and 2) Hopper's arrest ("In the car with him was xxxxxx,, Hopper's 26-year-old girlfriend who landed a state job during his one term as senator.")

Why would her name be removed from the details about these events? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VLARKer7 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because it falls within the BLP policy. Perhaps because because Wikipedia is NOT a tabloid.Capitalismojo (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I get it. Republicans in Wisconsin are evil because they are attempting to destroy unions. Fine. But this is an encyclopedia not a campaign blog. Scoring political points at the expense of the reputation of a young woman who has clearly no notability in her own right is precisely why there is a policy regarding Biographies of Living Persons. This could almost be the perfect example. Please do not insert this young person's name in the article again.Capitalismojo (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There any many sources that 1) discuss Hopper's arrest, trial and not guilty verdict. That is a significant event. 2) Your're being vague. What specifically, quote the guideline, does it violate? The allegations are IN THE ARTICLE ALREADY. The sources in the article identify her name. You're cherry-picking what you want to exclude based on what?
PS I don't care about your politics or your accusations. I care that you removed all mention of an arrest, trial and verdict from a politicians' article VLARKer7 (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to discuss the inclusion of a non-notable woman's name into an encyclopedia article. I will address the trial issue in another section. I have stated the reasons I believe that her name should not be in the article. I pointed out the BLP policy. I can't imagine you haven't read it, but if you haven't please do so. It uses examples of salacious materials in the guidelines of what to avoid. It is very much on point. Additionally, there is a warning to all editiors at the top of this talk page that mentions that this article is about a political figure and therefore that care must be taken about biased editing. I take that warning very seriously. Thus while I think it is appropriate to include the fact of his divorce proceeding and the quote from his wife in the article, I think the effort to add the name of a young woman (who is not in her own right notable) adds nothing to the substance of the article. In my opinion it also violates BLP. In fact it brings nothing but discredit to the encyclopedia to bring tabloid sensationalism into articles. We should not, I believe, engage in this level of editing. This is simple fairness and decency if nothing else.Capitalismojo (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you for a specific point in BLP that pertains to your argument. Famous people's less notable or unnotable family/or relationship names get mentioned. I'll ask again: Where in WP:BLP does it say you should exclude people's girlfriends names? That there is an entire section in the article ABOUT HER also shows she is relevant. To mention an event and not the name is selective and cherry-picking. VLARKer7 (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Don't you agree, V?Capitalismojo (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest and Not-guilty verdict

[edit]

Several days ago, after Mr. Hopper had been found not guilty, I removed the arrest and trial sub-section of the article. I felt that it consumed a fairly large portion of the article and given that he had been judged innocent it seemed Undue and perhaps contrary to the spirit and letter of BLP. VLurker reverted the edit and I have not altered that revert. I do believe that this incident takes up a lot of space in a small article and is therefore undue, especially in that he was found not guilty. The BLP aspect is this...do we include accusations and trials of former politicians in articles? Is this noteworthy? Yes, we can find reliable sources for it. I keep going back to the "What Wikipedia is not". This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a newspaper, and certainly not a tabloid. Here is my rule of thumb: Twenty years from now would it be important to know that a former state senator (after having left office) had been charged and found not guilty of drunk driving? My answer leans to probably not.Capitalismojo (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed two long-standing issues in the article. That a person was arrested, put on trial and found not guilty is relevant for anyone searching details about any figure. Again you cite BLP without giving any details! We have sources that 1) he was arrested, 2) he had a trial and 3) he was found not guilty. What in BLP means you remove all mention of the whole event? VLARKer7 (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the paragraph and stated my reasons. You restored the information. I have not reverted it. I have come to the talk section and restated my concerns related to the BLP policy issue. As I understand it, it is on the person who puts in or restores such information to make a positive case as to why it should be included. You have suggested that it is relevant. I agree. Relevance is not sufficient in itself. I don't believe that it conforms to this encyclopedia's policies on biographies of living people. I have stated why above. On this point I can be convinced. Please share why you believe that this paragraph is critical to the article and not counter to BLP policy. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 arrest for DUI, criminal trespass and so on

[edit]

Why isn't his October 2012 arrest mentioned? The page is locked preventing people from editing it.

"Former Fond du Lac State Senator Randy Hopper is in trouble with the law again., and this time it’s more than drunk driving.

The 46-year-old Repubican was arrested late Sunday night in the Township of Fond du Lac for Disorderly Conduct - Domestic Abuse, Criminal Trespass to a Dwelling and Unlawful Use of a Telephone. Hopper was also cited for drunk driving first offense.

Hopper was arrested at the home of his ex-wife."

Sources:

No word yet if he's gonna claim its part of a labor union conspiracy that he was arrested drunk again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapUNillin (talk • contribs) 15:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Randy_Hopper&oldid=1207639046"