This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
The whole article feels more like an advertisement for "Bob" needs some major cleanup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.182.160 ( talk) 05:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I've deleted the material that seemed to be cut and pasted from Huff's web site, and replaced it with what I hope is a more NPOV treatment. Since most or all of the self-promotional material copied in by Huff's communications director is now gone, I've deleted the POV tag.-- 75.83.65.81 ( talk) 02:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Some of the material in the article appears to have been cut and pasted from his campaign literature. For example, his web site has:
The article has:
-- 75.83.65.81 ( talk) 02:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC) I've deleted everything that appears to have been an obvious cut-and-paste job by Huff's staff and inserted what I hope is NPOV material.-- 75.83.65.81 ( talk) 02:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Billbird2111 ( talk) 18:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)billbird2111 Billbird2111 ( talk) 18:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC) This is where the frustration begins and mounts. The State Senate website belonging to Senator Huff is NOT, I repeat, NOT A CAMPAIGN WEBSITE. If you understood the difference between working in the Senate and working on campaign, you would understand this clearly. You don't have that experience. You don't get it. As a State Senate employee, I am prevented from doing campaign work on state time. I am employed by the State Senate. This is not a campaign body. This is a government body. Do you understand this? There are clear ethics rules that separate government from campaign. If an employee violates those rules, he is hauled before an independent committee and either fined heavily, or worse yet, prosecuted for ethics violations. The information on the Senator's State Senate website is NOT campaign related. It is a reflection of a body of his work as a State Senator. Secondly, I have worked with numerous Wikipedia editors who have informed me that I may not place ANYTHING on his Wikipedia page that isn't on the Senator's website. And now, I've run into other editors who claim, "this appears to be pulled straight from the Senator's website." You people clearly need to get your act together. Billbird2111 ( talk) 18:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)billbird2111 Billbird2111 ( talk) 18:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Please note that Billbird2111 is working for the subject as his Communications Director. [1] Mr. Bird, you should refrain from editing the article directly and instead make suggestions for changes here. -- NeilN talk to me 05:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I will adhere to Neil's request unless I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. This is really aggravating, and Neil, I posted my most aggravating concerns on your talk page. There's a reason why I'm making so many changes, people. It's because someone with a clear agenda against Senator Huff completely erased everything on his Wikipedia page over the weekend and inserted left-wing BS. I thought this was an encyclopedia page, no? Since when do you allow encyclopedias to attack Republicans or Democrats for that matter? This is exactly what took place. OK -- first suggested edit. This really bugs me. Under the Legislation heading, second paragraph, someone has placed a tag for clarification. I provided that clarification in two followup sentences, where it was explained why he (Senator Huff) introduced the legislation. Those lines have since been DELETED. Why? It provides the clarification that the editor is asking for. I am REQUESTING that these clarification lines be re-inserted, and the tag for clarification be removed: "Heritage Schools were previously not defined in state code as educational entities. Lacking this designation, the California Department of Social Services (DSS) would sometimes designate these schools as childcare centers, forcing them to close." Billbird2111 ( talk) 18:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)billbird2111 Billbird2111 ( talk) 18:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I want to know the exact reasons why the headings on Senator Huff's Wikipedia entry have been modified. I do not agree with them. This appears to be agenda driven only. Unless I am given a suitable explanation, I will change them back and take this dispute to the Dispute Resolution page. Billbird2111 ( talk) 20:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)billbird2111 Billbird2111 ( talk) 20:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm in the process of undoing edits by Huff's communications director, then reinserting the references and other positive contributions made in the interim by NeilN, Dru of Id, Elaqueate, and others. Got a message from NeilN protesting my revert -- NeilN, please discuss here. I'm attempting to get rid of the astroturfing without losing the positive contributions.-- 75.83.65.81 ( talk) 03:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
In 2000, he was named by the Los Angeles Times as one of the "Most Influential People" for his work in shaping the Inland Valley communities.I can't find a source for it that doesn't seem to originate from the Bob Huff press releases. The source we have is an event announcement. I don't know if the original was "Most Influential in California, in Real Estate, in Sacramento, Most Influential Rotarian, or whether it was out of 25, 100, or 1000 people. If it's from the year 2000, it's apparently when he was a mayor. I'm sure it references something, but right now it looks a bit fluffy and unverifiable. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
There's a bit of a problem with the paragraph describing Huff's relations with the Supermajority Democrats. The quote says he's pragmatic, but in context that's directly about getting legislation through, not about his views. The quote supports a different assertion than that he's seen as "moderate" which is not in the source we cite.
He is arguably moderate on some issues, such as Prop 8 issues, but we don't have anyone saying he is. I think we should either find more cited support for the moderate sentence on its own, or re-write to explain better, or ditch it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 11:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The changes made to the Wikipedia entry for Bob Huff are both libelous and attacking. This will go to the dispute resolution area. This agenda-driven attack has nothing to do with a supposed "neutral point of view," since it contains references and rankings from organizations that are diametrically opposed to Republican policy. Billbird2111 ( talk) 16:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)billbird2111 Billbird2111 ( talk) 16:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
This discussion was moved from User talk:Billbird2111:
Perhaps you would care to enlighten me? More than once, editors have insisted upon "sourced" material. I understand that you do not consider the Senator's website to be "sourced" material (though you do cite his campaign website, but not the Senate website, which I find odd). But I did source several paragraphs that were from websites or news organizations not connected to the Senator or his website. These items were still removed. I would like to know why. An example of this work is pasted below. -- Billbird2111 ( talk) 22:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
"This work is reflected in 100% vote rankings from the California Taxpayers Association [1], Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association [2], the California Chamber of Commerce [3], the California Farm Bureau Federation, and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. [4]"
References
I cleaned up some of the record. A lot of it is undue weight especially highlightin "sounbite" style legislation proposals that are given undue weight as they did not even pass committee. I rewrot the part on the "heritage schools" to match the sources (regulation is by dept. of education and it was joint legislation with another senator. The "deciding" vote declaration is not neutral given the supermajority status of Democrats and the whole "COI criticism" is undue weight and not neutral considering how mny Democrats would be needed to vote for it as well. The "reduced testing" sentence wasn't very clear so I simplified and rewrote it. For legislation have enough weight to be included I think at the minimum it would have to pass or, at the minimum, his opposition was successful. Either case would require substantial bipartisan support given the makeup. Finally, claiming the legislature is highly partisan with both houses having supermajorities and notr having a reliable source is a little much. Anything passed with Huff's support is bipartisan by definition and any legislation the he successfully opposes has bipartisan support. I found little evidence that he is a strong partisan voice, rather quite the opposite which is required if he wants anything to get done in his favor. -- DHeyward ( talk) 04:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I found this quote by the critic in the article mildly ironic "He shouldn't be leading the charge to protect that pot of money if he or anyone in his family has a financial stake," said Carroll Wills, a spokesman for the California Professional Firefighters union, which wants to redirect the subsidies to public safety and schools." Presuming she gets paid by the group that is lobbying to get the pot. The COI seemed a stretch by not being mentioned in the stadium article and wasn't balanced with counterclaims that were made. I hate bio's that are filled with quotes and tidbits so my reaction is that if it can't be covered neutrally in a sentence or two and it's minor, just delete it. I never heard of the guy until today so if it's bigger and has more coverage, that be relevant.
I removed strong and unsourced claims in the ratings (i.e. "strong supporter of education" , "against gun control", "pro-life", etc, - these are usually nuanced positions and none of them were sourced. I replaced his "Life Priority Network Rating" with the "California Pro-Life Council". Scores were the same but one group seems non-notable while the CPLC is the california affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee. The Planned Parenthood score was incorrect and I updated it. I added the Votesmart disclaimer at the bottom. Some of the scoring is obviously more related to party than position. I found cases for both. in fact some only gave out 100 or 0 and it correlated to R or D. Others appeared to pander to both parties and gave high scores for being a politician. This wasn't Votesmarts fault, but the the orgs that submit ratings. -- DHeyward ( talk) 05:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I'd remove the score section and anything from Votesmart as their is no guide that any particular groups opinion is relevant. There are obviously well-known special interests but to the extent their score is meaningful, it's more like a primary source without having a newspaper or other source say which opinions are meaningful. It leaves a lot of interpretation by editors as to what to include and what the results mean. Example was citing Life Priority Network's rating. There is nothing to say whether their opinion is notable. The other was the statement that California School Employees Association was a teachers union. That was unsourced and they are not a teachers union. -- DHeyward ( talk) 05:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
The whole article feels more like an advertisement for "Bob" needs some major cleanup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.182.160 ( talk) 05:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I've deleted the material that seemed to be cut and pasted from Huff's web site, and replaced it with what I hope is a more NPOV treatment. Since most or all of the self-promotional material copied in by Huff's communications director is now gone, I've deleted the POV tag.-- 75.83.65.81 ( talk) 02:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Some of the material in the article appears to have been cut and pasted from his campaign literature. For example, his web site has:
The article has:
-- 75.83.65.81 ( talk) 02:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC) I've deleted everything that appears to have been an obvious cut-and-paste job by Huff's staff and inserted what I hope is NPOV material.-- 75.83.65.81 ( talk) 02:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Billbird2111 ( talk) 18:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)billbird2111 Billbird2111 ( talk) 18:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC) This is where the frustration begins and mounts. The State Senate website belonging to Senator Huff is NOT, I repeat, NOT A CAMPAIGN WEBSITE. If you understood the difference between working in the Senate and working on campaign, you would understand this clearly. You don't have that experience. You don't get it. As a State Senate employee, I am prevented from doing campaign work on state time. I am employed by the State Senate. This is not a campaign body. This is a government body. Do you understand this? There are clear ethics rules that separate government from campaign. If an employee violates those rules, he is hauled before an independent committee and either fined heavily, or worse yet, prosecuted for ethics violations. The information on the Senator's State Senate website is NOT campaign related. It is a reflection of a body of his work as a State Senator. Secondly, I have worked with numerous Wikipedia editors who have informed me that I may not place ANYTHING on his Wikipedia page that isn't on the Senator's website. And now, I've run into other editors who claim, "this appears to be pulled straight from the Senator's website." You people clearly need to get your act together. Billbird2111 ( talk) 18:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)billbird2111 Billbird2111 ( talk) 18:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Please note that Billbird2111 is working for the subject as his Communications Director. [1] Mr. Bird, you should refrain from editing the article directly and instead make suggestions for changes here. -- NeilN talk to me 05:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I will adhere to Neil's request unless I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. This is really aggravating, and Neil, I posted my most aggravating concerns on your talk page. There's a reason why I'm making so many changes, people. It's because someone with a clear agenda against Senator Huff completely erased everything on his Wikipedia page over the weekend and inserted left-wing BS. I thought this was an encyclopedia page, no? Since when do you allow encyclopedias to attack Republicans or Democrats for that matter? This is exactly what took place. OK -- first suggested edit. This really bugs me. Under the Legislation heading, second paragraph, someone has placed a tag for clarification. I provided that clarification in two followup sentences, where it was explained why he (Senator Huff) introduced the legislation. Those lines have since been DELETED. Why? It provides the clarification that the editor is asking for. I am REQUESTING that these clarification lines be re-inserted, and the tag for clarification be removed: "Heritage Schools were previously not defined in state code as educational entities. Lacking this designation, the California Department of Social Services (DSS) would sometimes designate these schools as childcare centers, forcing them to close." Billbird2111 ( talk) 18:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)billbird2111 Billbird2111 ( talk) 18:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I want to know the exact reasons why the headings on Senator Huff's Wikipedia entry have been modified. I do not agree with them. This appears to be agenda driven only. Unless I am given a suitable explanation, I will change them back and take this dispute to the Dispute Resolution page. Billbird2111 ( talk) 20:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)billbird2111 Billbird2111 ( talk) 20:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm in the process of undoing edits by Huff's communications director, then reinserting the references and other positive contributions made in the interim by NeilN, Dru of Id, Elaqueate, and others. Got a message from NeilN protesting my revert -- NeilN, please discuss here. I'm attempting to get rid of the astroturfing without losing the positive contributions.-- 75.83.65.81 ( talk) 03:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
In 2000, he was named by the Los Angeles Times as one of the "Most Influential People" for his work in shaping the Inland Valley communities.I can't find a source for it that doesn't seem to originate from the Bob Huff press releases. The source we have is an event announcement. I don't know if the original was "Most Influential in California, in Real Estate, in Sacramento, Most Influential Rotarian, or whether it was out of 25, 100, or 1000 people. If it's from the year 2000, it's apparently when he was a mayor. I'm sure it references something, but right now it looks a bit fluffy and unverifiable. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
There's a bit of a problem with the paragraph describing Huff's relations with the Supermajority Democrats. The quote says he's pragmatic, but in context that's directly about getting legislation through, not about his views. The quote supports a different assertion than that he's seen as "moderate" which is not in the source we cite.
He is arguably moderate on some issues, such as Prop 8 issues, but we don't have anyone saying he is. I think we should either find more cited support for the moderate sentence on its own, or re-write to explain better, or ditch it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 11:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The changes made to the Wikipedia entry for Bob Huff are both libelous and attacking. This will go to the dispute resolution area. This agenda-driven attack has nothing to do with a supposed "neutral point of view," since it contains references and rankings from organizations that are diametrically opposed to Republican policy. Billbird2111 ( talk) 16:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)billbird2111 Billbird2111 ( talk) 16:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
This discussion was moved from User talk:Billbird2111:
Perhaps you would care to enlighten me? More than once, editors have insisted upon "sourced" material. I understand that you do not consider the Senator's website to be "sourced" material (though you do cite his campaign website, but not the Senate website, which I find odd). But I did source several paragraphs that were from websites or news organizations not connected to the Senator or his website. These items were still removed. I would like to know why. An example of this work is pasted below. -- Billbird2111 ( talk) 22:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
"This work is reflected in 100% vote rankings from the California Taxpayers Association [1], Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association [2], the California Chamber of Commerce [3], the California Farm Bureau Federation, and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. [4]"
References
I cleaned up some of the record. A lot of it is undue weight especially highlightin "sounbite" style legislation proposals that are given undue weight as they did not even pass committee. I rewrot the part on the "heritage schools" to match the sources (regulation is by dept. of education and it was joint legislation with another senator. The "deciding" vote declaration is not neutral given the supermajority status of Democrats and the whole "COI criticism" is undue weight and not neutral considering how mny Democrats would be needed to vote for it as well. The "reduced testing" sentence wasn't very clear so I simplified and rewrote it. For legislation have enough weight to be included I think at the minimum it would have to pass or, at the minimum, his opposition was successful. Either case would require substantial bipartisan support given the makeup. Finally, claiming the legislature is highly partisan with both houses having supermajorities and notr having a reliable source is a little much. Anything passed with Huff's support is bipartisan by definition and any legislation the he successfully opposes has bipartisan support. I found little evidence that he is a strong partisan voice, rather quite the opposite which is required if he wants anything to get done in his favor. -- DHeyward ( talk) 04:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I found this quote by the critic in the article mildly ironic "He shouldn't be leading the charge to protect that pot of money if he or anyone in his family has a financial stake," said Carroll Wills, a spokesman for the California Professional Firefighters union, which wants to redirect the subsidies to public safety and schools." Presuming she gets paid by the group that is lobbying to get the pot. The COI seemed a stretch by not being mentioned in the stadium article and wasn't balanced with counterclaims that were made. I hate bio's that are filled with quotes and tidbits so my reaction is that if it can't be covered neutrally in a sentence or two and it's minor, just delete it. I never heard of the guy until today so if it's bigger and has more coverage, that be relevant.
I removed strong and unsourced claims in the ratings (i.e. "strong supporter of education" , "against gun control", "pro-life", etc, - these are usually nuanced positions and none of them were sourced. I replaced his "Life Priority Network Rating" with the "California Pro-Life Council". Scores were the same but one group seems non-notable while the CPLC is the california affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee. The Planned Parenthood score was incorrect and I updated it. I added the Votesmart disclaimer at the bottom. Some of the scoring is obviously more related to party than position. I found cases for both. in fact some only gave out 100 or 0 and it correlated to R or D. Others appeared to pander to both parties and gave high scores for being a politician. This wasn't Votesmarts fault, but the the orgs that submit ratings. -- DHeyward ( talk) 05:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I'd remove the score section and anything from Votesmart as their is no guide that any particular groups opinion is relevant. There are obviously well-known special interests but to the extent their score is meaningful, it's more like a primary source without having a newspaper or other source say which opinions are meaningful. It leaves a lot of interpretation by editors as to what to include and what the results mean. Example was citing Life Priority Network's rating. There is nothing to say whether their opinion is notable. The other was the statement that California School Employees Association was a teachers union. That was unsourced and they are not a teachers union. -- DHeyward ( talk) 05:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)