Talk:Duncan L. Hunter

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

Future Tense Cannot Be Used[edit]

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)[reply]

2006 re-election campaign[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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".

Hairpiece[edit]

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[reply]

Biased[edit]

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.

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

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 .[reply]

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

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

==Wording of 2008 Presidential Campaign section==[edit]

Parts of this section are written like an advertisement. Other parts, notably the final paragraph, are written as a complaint, as it insinuates the opinion that Hunter's actual presidential merit is greater than he has received in polls.. This is in contrast to the neutral point of view that Wikipedia articles should take. I recommend re-wording of this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.59.200 (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

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)[reply]

Rework[edit]

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

Rating[edit]

This is a good article, at least a B. I would petition for this to be rated GA, but I think the disagreements need to be solved first. ludahai 魯大海 14:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews[edit]

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanimum (talk • contribs) 19:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews interview with Duncan Hunter[edit]

I have been in touch with the campaign of Duncan Hunter, and we are to arrange an interview. Please leave questions for Congressman Hunter on my User talk:DavidShankBone page. Thanks. --David Shankbone 19:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

If someone could please inform me why User:Southern Texas continues to replace a more recent picture of Hunter from the United States Congress with a picture of Hunter from at least 10 or 15 years ago from the United States Congress, then I would be eternally grateful. For some reason User:Southern Texas thinks he is holier-than-thou and can decide what picture will and must be used on an Infobox. Especially if an updated photo has been released by the United States government. CoolKid1993 02:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photo you want to add looks nothing like Duncan Hunter. If you ever seen him you would know that he looks nothing like that.Here is a google image search, the image you want to add comes up only once while the image I want to keep comes up three times. The image you want to add is too small for the infobox which makes it appear blurry. Sorry if I wasn't clear but I did revert you for a reason.--Southern Texas 21:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did look through images.google, and the picture you favor, Southern Texas, is an airbrushed version of an older image. The United States Congress picture that you keep removing is more real and thus better for the encyclopedia. Further, it is actually clearer, despite your claim. I am reverting your edit to the better, more recent, truer image. Hu 00:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Duncan Hunter, official photo portrait, color.jpg is more suitable for an infobox since it is 2359 × 2938 pixel and is more representative of Duncan Hunter as demonstrated by the google search; the image is more recognizable and can be found anywhere in this encyclopedia when an article mentions Duncan Hunter. Image:DuncanHunter.jpg is 175 × 214 pixel and is not suitable for an infobox. This is just about what is more reasonable. I thank you for trying to help the article but it is not necessary unless you can find a larger, higher resolution picture that will not be blurry in the infobox. I am sorry if I am frustrating you because it is not my intent.--Southern Texas 01:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, everything you are saying seems to be the complete opposite of what I am trying to do with the photo of Hunter from the United States Congress's Pictorial website. http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05oct20051114/www.gpoaccess.gov/pictorial/109th/pages/023.pdf If you have ever seen Duncan Hunter, then you should know that he is much older than he is in the picture you are trying to use. If a picture were to be taken from the .pdf file that I have just linked you to, then the size of the image should probably be suitable to use. A large image should not be required if there are no recent pictures that equal the size of the current picture's properties. Watch the next debate featuring Duncan Hunter's appearance and compare the picture you are wanting to continue to use to the current state of Duncan Hunter's appearance. I think you will find that even though the picture comes up most often on Google Image Search, it does not best represent him as who he is. CoolKid1993 02:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
favored by Southern Texas
favored by CoolKid1993 & Hu

Both images get reduced by the infobox template code to 160 pixels wide by 200 pixels high anyway, so your size argument does not apply, and further, an objective observer can see that the right one is sharper, though that is a secondary plus compared to the issue of truthfullness and currency. When you use the exact image.google search link SouthernTexas provides, you will see that the right image is the second one. That image is one of 13 photos of him on that first search page that shows that he has graying hair and has gained weight and lines and wrinkles since your favored picture. The other three of the 16 photos on that page are various derivative versions of your favored image. If you look at the first five pages of Duncan Hunter images, as I did, you will see that the only one with black hair and a retouched neck is your favored image. I think you, SouthernTexas may have a non-NPoV the way you keep pushing a photo that is older and obviously out of date just because it is more flattering to your candidate. I am going to revert the image again. Please leave it with the more honest image. Hu 02:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture on the left is much clearer, much larger and better suited for the infobox. Nobody ever said that the picture had to be recent, look at the Al Gore page. This is a more recognizable image of Duncan Hunter. It is used on his congressional website. I have no problem with including both images in the article but I feel that the image on the left is better suited for the infobox for the reasons previously stated.--Southern Texas 03:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have met Duncan Hunter. But its been a while. I think the left picture looks like him more. But, that does not matter. I think the left one should be chosen because it is "official" and the right one is not. --Blue Tie 17:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The right one is official, it is the Congress picture. In any case more recent is more truthfull, and truthfullness and accuracy trump "official", especially for this encyclopedia. Your old meeting him is "original research" which counts for very little on Wikipedia, and is trumped by the references, namely the first five pages of images.google (and more). Hu 19:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon sources, the right one does not look official to me. It is not THE "Congress" picture. It is "a" Congress Picture. Based upon the source, the other one looks like it is more official. But You are really misguided about truthfulness. Wikipedia is not about truth. It is about verification and sourcing. And as far as I can tell the left one has a superior source. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but right now, something that comes from www.house.gov and that appears on the main house page for hunter, namely: http://www.house.gov/hunter/, must be the most official version. In addition, Bioguide adds this disclaimer to its photos: "Images on this site are provided as a contribution to education and scholarship. Not all images are in the public domain; some images may be protected by the U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). Do not duplicate without permission from copyright holder. Copyright information is provided whenever possile, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the user to determine and satisfy the copyright and other restrictions.". So the picture may not be free as the other one is.--Blue Tie 20:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting page, Cruftbane. This discussion has a long way to go to sink to the hilariously dismal depths of those disputes, but thank you for the pause for contemplation.

Officialness, especially when coming from a party with a conflict of interest, namely Duncan Hunter's own House page, does not equate to truthfulness or accuracy. It merely verifies that he had a natural self-interest in looking "good". It is clear that the right portrait has been made more recently, is more accurate, and the multitude of sources from images.google provide abundant verification of this fact. It is worth noting that the pictures on his official campaign website[1] are more like the right portrait, gray hair and all. So if you are looking for a confluence of offical and accurate, that is it. Hu 07:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about what looks like, but what "is". The image on the left is the best image we have of Hunter on wikipedia regardless of age and it is from the "official" congressional website. If you want to talk about a page that shows an old image why don't you start with the picture of Al Gore from 1994? --Southern Texas 21:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the one on the right that is more recent and far clearer is preferable. --David Shankbone 21:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not clearer. Are we looking at the same image?--Southern Texas 22:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think he is looking at the same image, Southern Texas. Perhaps you are the one who isn't looking at the same image. Anyway, I think that we should have an official vote on which picture should be used in the Infobox. CoolKid1993 22:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you 'comment out' your explanation of what the vote was about, below? Marieblasdell 22:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To make sure that the purpose of the voting section is fully understood. CoolKid1993 22:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why making the explanation harder for people to see will make it more fully understood, but I'll assume there's a reason. Marieblasdell 22:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second question. You DO consistently remove one picture. You're not just swapping the pictures--you've made it clear that you don't want one picture in the article. Then, every time you revert, you deny that you're doing that. Explanation? Marieblasdell 22:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's called the "Undo" button. It reverts edits. I've only reverted edits to include the truer image. I have not deleted the image. Either way, it does not matter which image I prefer, considering we are now voting. And I urge you to help move this conversation along by also voting instead of arguing. CoolKid1993 22:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

  • Right Image I support using the right image of Duncan Hunter because it is clearer, crisper, and truer. CoolKid1993 22:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is NOT a democracy, voting does not resolve disputes. I have already explained why the image on the left is better suited for the infobox,

  1. It is clearer
  2. It is larger and better for the infobox
  3. It is more widely representative of its subject
  4. It is the official image per the congressman's page on the House of Representatives
  5. Regardless of how old an image is it still can be used to represent its subject see the Al Gore page.--Southern Texas 23:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if what you are telling me about Wikipedia not being democracy is true, why have you in the past, to mention one example, led another dispute of whether or not to include Minor candidate Jon Cox on the 2008 election footer template, which ultimately led you to create a "voting" section also? CoolKid1993 05:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue you pointed out was completely different than this and has nothing to do with this. To correct you, I did not start the section and the arguments were at a stalemate on policy so voting was necessary for the situation. It is evident that you have started "voting" because you cannot argue your point effectively anymore. I have given five good reasons why the picture should not be changed, you have given zero. Polling on an issue as childish as this is not effective and does not help your weak argument. Follow policy and discuss the issue at hand.--Southern Texas 18:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some reorg[edit]

I've reorganized this article, as it was too focused on Duncan Hunter as a political candidate, and not enough on Duncan Hunter as a biography of a political figure. For instance, given that there was already a Political positions of Duncan Hunter article, it made no sense to organize the main article along the same topics line. Instead, significant Congressional actions are now described under that existing section, while other policy positions have been moved to the daughter article. Similarly, given that there was already a Duncan Hunter presidential campaign, 2008 article, some of the straw poll detail was moved into there. Material in the "Controversies" section was disbursed into the contextually appropriate place in other main article sections, as per recent Wikipedia-wide practice. In doing this, I trimmed down the "house size taxes" material considerably, as in retrospect there doesn't seem to be much there. Wasted Time R 18:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cunningham/Wilkes section[edit]

Cunningham Wilkes section is cruft and almost entirely irrelevant to this article. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not cruft, but it needs a rewrite to focus more on what pertains to Hunter. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think its cruft. A re-write would essentially say: Hunter might have a legal or ethical problem but actually he doesn't. Self contradictory information about a very insignificant matter in his life. Not encyclopedic. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
almost all of it is allegations and speculation that attempts to build an implication. violates WP:BLP pretty clearly. Anastrophe (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Election[edit]

Duncan L Hunter was not running for reelection in 2008, but rather did his son - Duncan D Hunter. Hence a couple information on this page are wrong or missing.

see

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rep.-duncan-hunter-will-not-seek-reelection-2007-03-20.html http://www.hunterforcongress.com/ http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/usrep/5259.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.111.27 (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also why not indicate that the Hunter who took over the office was the son of the previous Hunter who held the office? It took me a few minutes to figure out which was which when I first stumbled over here. Hcobb (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Role In Collection Of Information By The Selective Service[edit]

I have a question. Was it not Hunter who was behind that fact boys applying for learners permits and first drivers licenses have their personal information routinely sent to the Selective Service in Washington, D.C.? And, isn't illegal to gather such personal information on minors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godofredo29 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Hunter "vapes" during congressional hearing[edit]

See http://ktla.com/2016/02/11/republican-congressman-uses-vaporizer-during-hearing-about-use-of-device-on-airplanes/ and http://www.statnews.com/2016/02/11/congressman-duncan-hunter-vaping/. MB298 (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Duncan Hunter. 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) 19:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duncan Hunter. 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) 17:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Duncan Hunter. 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) 08:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duncan Hunter. 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) 19:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oops[edit]

I added information to this article that really belonged in the Duncan D. Hunter article. I've now moved it to where it belonged.

Oops! Geo Swan (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duncan_L._Hunter&oldid=1207671036"