Talk:Bob Filner

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

UG and Doctoral Major?[edit]

Does either his website or another source list which discipline(s) Filner received his degrees in? -Fsotrain09 19:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At http://www.prism-magazine.org/jan01/briefings/briefings.cfm it says "Bob Filner (D-CA) BS, chemistry; Ph.D., history of science Cornell University". -- Sholom 20:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's list that as a reference then... -Fsotrain09 20:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veterans Affairs Committee Ranking Member[edit]

Bob Filner is currently Acting Ranking Democrat on the Veteran's Affairs Committee due to Lane Evans' retirement. -Bethcocoa

Given Filner's Presence on the Veterans Affairs Committee, How Did Filner Avoid Military Service and Vietnam?[edit]

Given Filner's role in Congress, and given the turmoil of the draft and Vietnam which was THE major factor in his youth, the biography is curiously devoid of any mention of the historical context. How did Filner avoid military service? Apparently, Filner is today interested in military matters, so this is an utterly reasonable question.

Bob Filner not shown on the Transportation Subcommittee on Coast Gaurd and Maritime Page[edit]

Bob Filner not shown on the Transportation Subcommittee on Coast Gaurd and Maritime Page

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filner's support for the People's Mujahedin of Iran[edit]

Filner has been very sympathetic to the MEK, a Maoist group aiming to overthrow the government of Iran, and has advocated for the MEK to be taken off of the State Department's list of terrorist groups. He has been one of the MEK's best friends in Congress and his sympathies for them have gotten attention. Why no mention of this in this article? 69.228.148.80 (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filner's post-congressional advocacy for the MEK and the National Council of Resistance of Iran has continued, and his June 2013 trip to Paris was paid for by the Resistance. It has been noted and updated regularly since this question was posed. Activist (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Score Cards[edit]

I wanted to make a note here, Social Gal At Heart removed the Score Cards Section. I don't see anything here about it's removal? Matthew Glennon (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

What happent o his picture for the infobox? Spongie555 (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salton Sea[edit]

Has expressed support for algae based biofuel development to help clean the salton sea, and produce fuel and jobs. this is an excellent idea, and probably deserves some coverage. Cleanup of the Salton Sea would be a huge deal.12.125.80.214 (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual harassment scandal[edit]

Might want more eyes and maybe semi-protect the article.

Bob Filner sexual harrassment allegation - story in LA Times→StaniStani  04:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert. I'm watching it and I believe others are as well. So far there has not been a problem sufficient to require protection. And let's be clear that this is not a "sex scandal" in the usual sense and no reliable source has called it that. It is allegations of sexual harrassment. --MelanieN (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct. I adusted the wording in my link to reflect that.→StaniStani  17:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that somebody did see fit to add semiprotection pending changes protection. Most likely due to last night's troll - who has now been blocked anyhow. MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's the deal with the BLP sources tag? It looks like the two sentences about the current scandal are properly sourced as is pretty much everything else on this article. mcd51 (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the Current Events tag would be a better fit.→StaniStani  21:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The BLP tag appears to be routine; I agree that the article is well sourced and it shouldn't be hard to keep it that way. The Current Events tag is not appropriate; see the Guidelines for that template here: "the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news. It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic." --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The protection seems to have expired already. I never did get it straight whether it was semiprotection or pending changes protection (the tag differed from the log entry), but in either case it doesn't seem to have been vitally needed. --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, it still has pending-changes protection. I wonder if we really need that? The page has been remarkably quiet, with literally no vandalism or contentious edits except for one troll who was blocked five days ago. It was reasonable to assume there would be heavy editing and POV pushing at an article like this - particularly with the Union Tribune flogging the story every day with banner headlines. But the anticipated problems do not seem to have materialized. I am thinking of asking the protecting administrator to remove the protection, what do the rest of you think? --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take it back; in the past 24 hours an IP has twice tried to vandalize the article and gotten caught by the pending-changes protection. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were two press conferences televised live yesterday, 7/22/13, in which City Council members first reiterated their bipartisan calls for Filner's resignation followed immediately by another press conference by attorney Gloria Allred, accompanied by her law partner. They filed a sexual harassment claim on behalf of Filner's recent communications director, their client who appeared at the event, and collectively joined calls for his resignation. Allegations have also been raised with respect to misuse of City credit cards by Filner's staff. Activist (talk) 06:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on?[edit]

I don't understand what happened here. A regular autoconfirmed user was adding updates to the article, which were automatically acceped, and then all of a sudden his edits got put under pending changes. The new information needs to go into the article but at this point it's just sitting there. Why did things change? And would someone who has Pending Changes Review rights please approve these changes and put them into the article? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted changes. →StaniStani  20:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section[edit]

Should we rename the Controversy section back to Allegations of sexual harrassment? I feel like it's more descriptive of what the section is actually about, and it avoids violating the WP:CRITS guideline. Alternatively, maybe we could keep all of this under the Mayor of San Diego with subsections for the sexual harrassment allegations and the recall effort. The Other issues could just be kept under the main mayoral section without being called out separately. mcd51 (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversy" sections are fairly common, and the current controversy certainly is what made him a national figure. I do think there is too much detail (added as the story broke day by day) and it could be trimmed, but I feel that the three subsections are a good fit under "controversy"; what do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 03:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the current controversy is what made him famous across the nation, which is why the I feel the section would be better if the title referred explicitly to the sexual harassment accusations. Controversy as the section title just seems too broad since so much of Filner's career has been controversial. Why wouldn't a controversy section include the airline worker contoversy, the MEK controversy, the medical marijuana controversy, or the TMD controversy (which is actually listed on as one of the items against him on the recall petition)? Either way, I appreciate the input and I'll wait to see if any one else wants to weigh in. mcd51 (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point about Filner having had many other controversies in his long political life. Based on that, I'm thinking you may be right about having the current section be just about the current uproar, with a subsection for the recall effort. I would also like to keep the "other issues", maybe with a different name, in that same section about his current problems; it is part and parcel of the current publicity and will be cited by recall proponents. Is there anything else we could call the main section, other than "allegations of sexual harassment"? Maybe "2013 allegations and recall attempt" or something? Because the situation has grown way beyond just the sexual harassment allegations IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"2013 allegations and recall attempt" sounds good for now. The other issues certainly play into the recall if you look into the official text of the petition [1]. As things develop, we may want to rename this section again or break out the recall into its own section. mcd51 (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made that change for now. As you say, a different organization may be needed as events progress. --MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Time to start trimming?[edit]

Some of the detail provided as the story unfolded now may be extraneous or moot. Is it time to start eliminating some of them? For example, the paragraph about the city council refusing to pay his legal fees now appears to be moot. And the squabble about whether the city failed to provide him with training now looks like a flash in the pan. Opinions? --MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I also think the sections on medical marijuana and the TMD in the "Mayor of San Diego" section might contain more detail than is necessary. Someone could probably try to summarize the key information a little better there too. mcd51 (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great start on this - you trimmed it of excess detail but left all the significant information in place. Well done! --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Names of victims[edit]

This article originally included the names of two of the women who said they had been harrassed by Filner: namely, his former communications director and a retired admiral. Two weeks ago I removed the names, leaving the descriptions, with the comment "Removing names of victims; they are in the public record but the legal case described them as Jane Does; I think it's better not to name them, especially now that the case has been resolved". One of the names (the admiral) has now been re-added, with the comment "Named in the media after she came forward so her name goes into the article". I am seeking advice from third parties about whether to name people in the article, and if so, which ones. All 19 of the women were named in the press at one time or another, so all the names are on the public record. The admiral is the only one currently named in this article; she is also the only one who has a Wikipedia article, and the Filner issue is mentioned at her article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that User:TheRedPenOfDoom deleted the name, so there are currently no names in the article. I would still like to get a consensus here in case names get added again. --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPNAME the names of the non-notable individual victims should NOT be listed here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say that "non-notable individual victims should NOT be listed here" yet im pretty sure that Admiral (redacted) is a notable person especially since she "was the first woman to serve as commander of the United States Navy Region Southwest". So she is a notable person. Sillyputty87 (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simply stating what you have stated here does not imply a case for her being notable in this context. You need to explain why you think this makes her a notable victim.--Taylornate (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the claim remains in (redacted)'s article per WP:DUE, then I don't see a problem with mentioning it here; we should make links between notable subjects when possible. The other names should be removed per TRPoD. I note that the para on this case has been removed from (redacted)'s article now, so unless it's put back her name should be left out as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Red Pen in full. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Red Pen. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As do I. Neljack (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that per WP:AVOIDVICTIM the names clearly should be left off. Our BLP policy is intentionally conservative. I would also say that the conversation above clearly indicates a strong consensus to avoid using the names of the victims. VQuakr (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Names of victims unless independently notable are not necessary in order for the reader to understand the subject of the article. They should be left out.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

Is that picture legitimate? Maybe it is my sleep-addled brain but something looks extremely off about it? 207.164.152.162 (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why I didn't look around before posting that but it looks like it is legitimate. Sorry about that. 207.164.152.162 (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly natural reaction on seeing a photo of Filner. It's even worse in person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.82.135 (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that commons:File:Bob Filner mayoral portrait.jpg is a copyright violation. A number of other free images are available on Commons, currently linked to from Bob Filner#External links. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 16:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the above discussion refers to a photo which has since been deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The file commons:File:Bob Filner mayoral portrait.jpg has since been undeleted per the discussion at Wikimedia, so I'm restoring this as the main image. mcd51 (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bob Filner. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bob Filner. 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) 12:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bob Filner. 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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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) 02:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't dead; it just moved. -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Filner&oldid=1207224013"