Talk:John Huppenthal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
This article was nominated for deletion on June 3, 2005; the consensus was keep. For discussion, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John huppenthal.

Contents

[edit] Please note this blog mention

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)
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)

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

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

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)
I marked Don't move for deletion. --BenBurch 04:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


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)

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)

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

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Recall

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)

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

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)

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)

[edit] User:Greenfields

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

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

[edit] deleted personal info

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)

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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/Talk%7EJohn_Huppenthal_ef4e.html"