Talk:Joe Heck

Biographical info

I commented out a big chunk of recently added biographical info because (1) It was unsourced, (2) The tone was more promotional than what is appropriate on Wikipedia, and (3) It appears to largely be a copy/paste from here. If someone wants to rework it to be more encyclopedic, that would be great, otherwise it should be deleted. Arbor832466 (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that another editor added a ref to Rep. Heck's congressional bio, but that doesn't mean it's appropriate to copy/paste large swaths of promotional material to a bio. I'm going to comment out again for now, and work on condensing tomorrow. Would love to hear other editors weigh in on this as well. Arbor832466 (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Greg Lemon with Congressman Joe Heck's office here. I wanted to pass along some suggested updates to Heck's committee assignments. The first: Rep. Heck was recently named the Chairman of the House Armed Services Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. citation The next: Rep. Heck is also the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence. citation I hope that these updates merit addition to the page. Please feel free to reach out to me at any time. I can be reached at Greg.Lemon@mail.house.gov Rep. Heck Press Office (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Done.

There are too many references to a transitory issue re the Trump campaign. These are surely fairly tangential when placed in the full context of Heck's busy life. Many people criticize Wikipedia as "Liberalpedia" so a neutral ideological approach would help Wikipedia generally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.233.118 (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Gun Rights Advocate

The claim that Heck is a gun rights advocate needs to have a source (either inline or in the article), per WP:verifiability. Please provide a source for support if you want to add this category link.CFredkin (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Problematic recent edits to this page

This recent series of edits introduced a large amount of WP:OR, inadequately sourced material, and WP:NPOV issues into the article. As one example, the section on abortion reads: "In 2011, Heck voted in favor of prohibiting taxpayer funding of abortion, and prohibiting the use of federal funds for health services at Planned Parenthood, because 3% of its services are abortions. During his time in the House Heck has voted in favor of every bill to restrict, criminalize, or defund abortion." The source for that is Vote Smart. None of the content in that section appears to be verified by the source, though. The Vote Smart lists 12 votes it has identified as "key votes" related to abortion. I don't see anything in the source that says anything about 3% of Planned Parenthood's services being abortion. It's just a listing of the vote--how can we know why he voted on it the way he did? As for Heck voting in favor of every bill to restrict, etc., abortion, that is also clearly not in the source. The source doesn't even list all of the abortion-related bills Heck has voted on--just 12 bills that Vote Smart identified as "key" for whatever reason. This whole section contains a lot of WP:OR. This is just one example from the recent string of edits, linked above. But all of the other newly added sections have the same issue. It should really be reverted, and each individual section discussed, appropriate sourcing found, and then it can be put in the article. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Another really egregious example: "Heck has been a staunch supporter of the War on Terror." The source, again is a list of votes at Vote Smart. The source says no such thing about Heck, it merely lists a sampling of votes he's made on issues related to civil liberties. It is WP:OR and not WP:NPOV to extrapolate from a simple listing of votes that he is a "staunch supporter" of anything. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, need to change. Though, Heck is quite adamant about this in all of his campaign literature. Thus, we need to better cite his positions here. But it's a pretty banal statement of fact, even if not carried by the page at VoteSmart. --Smilo Don (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

"But it's a pretty banal statement of fact, even if not carried by the page at VoteSmart." No, we need WP:VERIFICATION. Wikipedia is based entirely upon the sourcing content to reliable, verifiable outside sources. One editors idea of a "banal statement of fact" is entirely subjective and not a foundation from which we can build an encyclopedia. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

And a big WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP issue: "Heck's son Joey has stirred public controversy with his allegedly racist and homophobic posts on social media." The source is BuzzFeed. It's an article from 2013 about social media posts made by Heck's minor son. It has no place in an encyclopedic article about Joe Heck. I've reverted the recent edits once, but my edit was undone by the author of these recent additions. I do not wish to get into an edit war. I would kindly ask the author of this new material to self-revert so we can discuss the issues I've mentioned above. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Happy to fix problems one by one, but the attempt here is to enumerate the candidate's positions on issues from abortion to civil liberties and beyond. VoteSmart is a non-partisan, encyclopedic website which simply makes publicly transparent Congressional votes, without any judgement one way or the other. So it's an excellent source. All of the positions here match up perfectly with the candidate's own web page, where he proudly stands behind these votes. I agree that the sentence about Planned Parenthood is bad, and that we can toss the note about his son (though that raised quite a political controversy in Nevada and was widely disseminated in the press; Buzzfeed--a non-reputable source perhaps--did break the story). The controversy about Heck's son became a political issue for obvious reasons.

All of the political positions listed here are easily confirmed. Heck is a typical Republican Congressman who prefers low taxes, little regulation of guns, no abortion, etc. The goal, as quite rightly noted above, is to make sure that all of these positions are presented in the most neutral way possible. Respectfully bearing all of this in mind, I'd like to restore all of the edits, and then work to improve any issues. I would also be grateful for any editors' help improving this webpage, so that we can accurately describe Joe Heck. --Smilo Don (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Smilo Don: In response to: "The goal, as quite rightly noted above, is to make sure that all of these positions are presented in the most neutral way possible". While I respect your bold additions and improvements to the page, there were bits you added that were either WP:POV or WP:UNDUE. Rather than restore your edits, I suggest we discuss each paragraph separately to establish consensus and neutrality. Meatsgains (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

One thing to note, Vote Smart's reliability was discussed awhile back at WP:RSN here. We must be careful. I'd recommend we leave out his political positions that cannot be verified in additional sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay--thanks for directing me to the debate about VoteSmart. I replied there. To me, the issue raised by other editors has to do with VoteSmart's attempt to synthesize "Positions" by candidates and candidate "Ratings." Both of these abstractions rely on methodological biases. However, VoteSmart's reporting on Congressional Members voting records seems quite legit, and I don't see any editors' concerns about the accuracy and impartiality of VoteSmart's reportage on voting records in Congress. So I think those votes could be a valuable set of data for detailing the positions of members of the House and Senate. Smilo Don (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Please help

Fellow editors, please help *add* to the candidate's positions, but helping add citations, detailing his voting record and public statements, etc. The goal is to create a non-partisan overview of this politician's views and actions, such that any observer could find neutral, fact-based information about Rep. Heck. All of the recent changes are based on verifiable sources. But more can be done to substantiate these, in a way that any impartial observer could applaud. So please contribute here with citations and further information. Kind thanks, --Smilo Don (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It appears you're doing fine on your own. I've read through the latest version of the page and those recent edits, while massive, appear to be relevant and sourced. Champagne pointed out a couple of problems, which appear to have been fixed, but for the most part, I think you're doing solid work. Rockypedia (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Rockypedia, I appreciate your appraisal. I've tried hard to honor the suggestions and spirit of Champaign. I do think it's better if more than one editor try to add info about this political figure. --Smilo Don (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Civil Liberties

Hi folks, wondering how best to show Heck's views on Guantanamo. Champaign flagged this for not being well referenced: "Heck favors the use of Guantanamo Bay as a prison for alleged terrorists, and has opposed all efforts to transfer suspects to other countries or other facilities.[17][not in citation given]". If you look at his US House voting record (as the link indicates) this is one of Mr. Heck's strongest and most consistent views: he ardently feels (see his record on the floor of the House and in committees) that terror suspects be detained in US military facilities and NOT transferred to civilian or non-US detention. Anyway, if anyone can help with this section, lovely. Cheers, --Smilo Don (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The source does not verify that Heck has "has opposed all efforts to transfer suspects to other countries or other facilities." It lists some bills he has voted on. It doesn't even list all of the bills he has voted on in this area. To verify the statement made in this section, we need a source that actually says the same thing as our article currently does. We can't interpret or extrapolate from sources--that's WP:OR. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - this would be WP:OR. Reliable sources confirming these controversial statements must be provided for the content to be restored. I've removed the content until a RS (other than Vote Smart) can be added. Meatsgains (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Dodd-Frank

Heck's own webpage states his opposition to Dodd-Frank; it's one of the talking points of his campaign. https://drjoeheck.com/on-the-issues/Smilo Don (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

If there's a reliable source for the material, then add the source. Right now, we have the material in the article, but with no sourcing. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I hear you. Just noting that it's one of his big themes, not some speculative comment. Smilo Don (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me, that if Heck, on his own webpage declares a position, this constitutes a reliable source. --Smilo Don (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Energy

Okay--looks like a couple of editors want more sources here. But I think it's important to have a section that fleshes out Mr. Heck's views on energy exploration, the regulation of energy industries, pollution, etc. These are HUGE issues in Nevada, with its historical and ongoing emphasis on mining and energy extraction. Smilo Don (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

That may well be true. But the core issue here is verifiability. Every statement of fact on Wikipedia must be accompanied by a reliable source. We can't include things certain editors think or know to be true, then add sources later. We can only include something in the first place if anyone who reads a Wikipedia article can see that it is true because it is in fact accompanied by a relevant citation. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Smilo Don: The recurring issue with all your contributions is that they lack reliable sources for support. We aren't arguing the content you are wanting to add is false but we can't add it to the Heck's page without proving a source. It is also not the responsibility of others to find the sources for you. Meatsgains (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit perturbed that VoteSmart.org is not taken as a legit source. It's a non-partisan, transparent, and non-ideological resource that simply reports Congressional votes. It does not interpret the bills or analyze the votes. It's a rather encyclopedic website. Indeed, it's more objective that journalistic coverage of Congressional votes, which usually explain or spin the votes/bills one way or the other. The whole point of VoteSmart is to provide objective data on Congress. Smilo Don (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Please have a look here: http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/44082/joe-heck-jr#.WAdx2NQrLwc What you see is the most stale listing of Heck's votes, and the most dry, cut and paste descriptions of bills. You can do the same for any member of Congress and votesmart issues a stream of votes, bills, public statements, etc. I would ask my fellow editors: is this biased? Inaccurate? Untrustworthy? Does it skew data towards one ideology or the other? Does it favor a special interest? Indeed, I think in many ways VoteSmart is a more objective source than many newspapers. I've resorted here to citing Nevada newsmedia (tv station websites and newspaper websites) but they almost invariably criticize, interpret, or praise Heck's positions. So, my point is that we could all benefit from this one specific website when editing the positions of Congressional members. Smilo Don (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Smilo Don: From Vote Smart's website:

Keep in mind that ratings done by special interest groups often do not represent a non-partisan stance. In addition, some groups select votes that tend to favor members of one political party over another, rather than choosing votes based solely on issues concerns. Nevertheless, they can be invaluable in showing where an incumbent has stood on a series of votes in the past one or two years, especially when ratings by groups on all sides of an issue are compared. Website links, if available, and descriptions of the organizations offering performance evaluations are accessible by clicking on the name of the group.

Not specifically regarding bills and votes but still a red flag. Meatsgains (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Right--the RATINGS are inherently problematic. What's so-and-so's rating by the NRA or the LCV or the Sierra Club? That's never going to be neutral. Although, in all fairness, it's a fairly decent way take the temperature of a politician on certain issues. The fact that VoteSmart reports these ratings doesn't, in my view, relegate the website to the dustbin. Rather it suggests that the Ratings section may not be appropriate, while the Voting section is. Again, the VOTING records, as reported by VoteSmart seem to have very little bias built in. At any rate, these vote records are less biased than most journalistic outlets, which is often what we rely on here at Wikipedia. Smilo Don (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of COI tag

I removed the COI tag from the page for lack of evidence. Before the tag is restored, I'd like feedback as to why it was added in the first place. Meatsgains (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joe Heck. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021200011/http://www.ausa.org/legislation/congressionalinfo/Documents/OAS%20112th%20Congress.pdf to http://www.ausa.org/legislation/congressionalinfo/Documents/OAS%20112th%20Congress.pdf

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) 12:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joe Heck. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160208074401/https://heck.house.gov/about-joe/full-biography to https://heck.house.gov/about-joe/full-biography

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) 12:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)