Talk:Duncan Hunter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Duncan Hunter is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. You can help by editing this article. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles.

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents 1 Future Tense Cannot Be Used 2 2006 re-election campaign 3 Hairpiece 4 Biased 4.1 ==Question on material======== 4.2 ==Connection to the Cunningham Scandal== 5 Vandalism 6 Rework

[edit] Future Tense Cannot Be Used

Future tense should be used rarely in encyclopedia articles (For a comet it's OK, but for a politician it's rarely appropriate). This article needs editing to remove the future tense parts.

Troy88 18:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 re-election campaign

I have restored this new section to the article. The section consists of only SIX lines. If there was an extensive discussion of each of the candidates, I would agree that the section was disproportionately long. But that's not the case.

Moreover, the article on Hunter isn't that long to begin with, so adding a short section on the 2006 election seems reasonable.

Finally, since Hunter could possibly get seriously hurt by the Cunningham scandal, his reelection opponents are important; if they are token [a citation for that would be appreciated], then that's meaningful. John Broughton 15:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hunter could possibly get seriously hurt by the Cunningham scandal. That's wishful thinking. He has long ago distanced himself from Cunningham. If anything, he would be more vulnerable from being the "glazed chicken" congressman who said that the U.S. cannot possibly torture prisoners in Guantanamo Bay because we feed them glazed chicken.

His opponents are poorly funded, ill-experienced, and not taken seriously by the Democratic Party establishment. Certainly not worth mentioning by name on Wikipedia.

Since this is an online encyclopedia, we have the flexibility of keeping this section until June 7, the day after the primary, and then shorten this section back to a single sentence, as this campaign is really no different than any of his other campaigns.

Just so you know, it is not legitimate to link to politics1.com, since Ron Gunzburger does not maintain archives of his site (he keeps overwriting the information). However, if we keep this section only until June 7 (after which Gunzburger will erase two of the three Dem contenders), we can let this slide too.

--Asbl 15:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Thanks. Also, on politics1.com, I've noticed the ever-changing information; the link is really just intended to be backup for the candidate list (and, in some sense, a way to verify that it is still accurate).

As far as challengers, I note that in other articles, editors have gone as far as to put double brackets around minor candidates, implying that there SHOULD be a wikipedia article on them. I don't agree - it takes maybe a thousand dollars and 100 signatures to get into a primary, yes?John Broughton 17:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's about $3000 and 65 signatures. The $3000 may be reduced (down to zero) by getting Signatures in Lieu (I think each signature is worth about 75 cents). --Asbl 17:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

John,
You changed the hidden comment in the article to read:

Note: Following the June 6 primary, text concerning the primary should be removed; only information relevant to the November election should be included.

You will have to make a case that "only information relevant to the November election" will be more than a sentence. At this point, I cannot see the relevant information being more than a single sentence, but perhaps you will be able to make that case.--Asbl 17:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A - why don't we agree to disagree - or, more accurately, just to wait until after the June primary. (I appreciate your patience.) If Hunter seems unlikely to be damaged by any scandal at that point, I'll concede that a sentence or two, in the "Congressional career" section, will suffice. (It would be good to add a link to a credible source that says that Hunter will have no problem in November, or whatever the sentence or two in the article actually says at that point - I don't doubt your analysis of the situation, but it's on this page and not in the article itself.) John Broughton 01:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This page has been vandalized. The excerpts from the San Diego Union Tribune article regarding Hunter's property taxes have been falsely altered to replace the word "said", wtih "lied".

[edit] Hairpiece

Should any reference be made to his touper?

Some people say elections are won on a basic of hair, but we wouldn't want to encourage voters to vote that way. It's irrelevant to his life- I'm sure many people in wikipedia articles have hairpeices. --Lophoole 22:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)lophoole

[edit] Biased

Where it talks about his presidential run, it only gives one other peice of information which is a quote negative about his chances. I'm going to remove it, feel free to put it back if sombody can balance it out in acourdance to wikipedia's policies.

[edit] ==Question on material========

I notice the information on his political platform is mixed in with history. Is this the general format for politician's bios? I think the entire article would be more useful if candidates for office had their platforms listed in a short paragraph. 71.223.69.15 21:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Tony G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony G (harvard30@hotmail.com) 71.223.69.15 (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2007 .

[edit] ==Connection to the Cunningham Scandal==

I am going to rework the entry about Hunter's connection to the Cunningham scandal. The current entry is a poorly paraphrased (at best) reference from a single source, which is in itself, an extremely biased article. I have been gathering sources on this topic for some time now, and I will do my best to put forth an informative and honest documentation on the subject. James Cudahy 25 February 2007

[edit] Vandalism

This page has been vandalized. The link that was supposed to go to Duncan Hunter's presidential campaign website actually pointed to a different candidate (John Cox). I have repaired this so that the link points where it should. DeVeritate 08:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rework

I'm going to re-work this one like I did the Tancredo one --SirAndrew1 04:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)