Jump to content

Talk:Tim Huelskamp

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

Committees

[edit]

So if he is no longer on the two committees, wouldn't we remove them from his page? Any comments? Whitestorm17 (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asshole Factor

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following statement seems inappropriate. It serves no purpose other than being sensational. Westmoreland later amended his statement to be "obstinate factor". Saying this would get the point across without being offensive.

Politico quoted Georgia Congressman Lynn Westmoreland as saying that Huelskamp, along with colleagues Justin Amash and David Schweikert, who were also stripped of committee assignments, were removed not because of their voting record but because of "the asshole factor".

CFredkin (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It serves no purpose other than being accurate. As per Wikipedia policy, it's a non-gratuitous quote from a notable subject, on a topic that said subject found to be *so* utterly notable that they emphasized it to the extreme. The notable subject finds Tim Huelskamp's behavior to be so consummately profane that only profanity can sufficiently describe it. The only thing more offensive than such a common sense description of Tim Huelskamp *is* Tim Huelskamp. It's notable because they said it, and they said it because it's notable. So it's actually necessary. As for my opinion — for what it's worth, which is nothing to Wikipedia, but I'm replying in kind for the purposes of solidarity and clarification — I find that reading the word itself is offensive, I find it even slightly more offensive that you so emphatically repeated it here (ha ha, only serious), I don't like language like that in an encyclopedia unless it absolutely must be, and I have tried to creatively deemphasize it when it's not the very subject, but so it is.  :-) It's like a "Critical reception" section for a movie, where Ebert might say, "this sucks and should have never been made, etc etc etc". This is exactly why I put the Voltaire-related quote prominently on my User page, saying that I may disagree with what someone says (or in this case, the fact that I must repeat it) but I defend their right to say it. I tolerate such language when necessary, just as I tolerate the existence of articles about things such as Tim Huelskamp — which is far more respect than he deserves, as if me being a citizen in his district wasn't humiliating and frightening enough to endure. Sadly, this is just how it is. This is my best effort to sincerely clarify this challenging issue and I hope it helps somehow.
Update: Upon review of the article's history, I see that you have been basically conducting an WP:EW edit war, so don't do that. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 05:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like Smuckola says, that's what Westmoreland said. CFredkin's claim that "Westmoreland later amended his statement to be "obstinate factor"" isn't correct. Instead, a spokesman for him said that "perhaps he should have said obstinate factor instead" [emphasis mine]. But he didn't, so we can't claim that he did. Tiller54 (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{rfc|bio|rfcid=1D674F7}}

NO CONSENSUS, BLP
The discussion seems to be evenly split between keep and rewrite. Per BLP, a tie should go "in favor" of the person. I also note the section is significantly longer than it needs to be. Upon closing, I'm going to remove the "asshole" per the RFC and trim the discussion per bold. The trimming is, of course, subject to further editing but I'd leave the asshole out unless a new, clear consensus forms for its conclusion. NE Ent 10:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is it appropriate to include the term "asshole factor" in this bio? CFredkin (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could have waited for more than 1 reply before posting an RFC? Or even replied to that person (Smuckola)? As it says under "Before starting the Request for comment process": "first discuss the matter with the other parties on the related talk page". Tiller54 (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, CFredkin. The question has long since been answered, even by Tiller54's helpful revert comments. Or you could have looked up and read the Wikipedia policy that I helpfully paraphrased for you. You can't change reality. Wikipedia is the antithesis and the antidote to that problem in the world. Given the topic, do you see the irony in your behavior? (rhetorical question) — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 15:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the original quote was "asshole factor" then that's what should be in the article. *However* I'm not sold on the idea that the incident is notable enough to be in a bio in the first place, making the point moot. In any case, I hope we can all remain mindful of our tone, lest we anger the gods of irony... Arbor8 (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before it was added back in (having been removed a few months ago by CFredkin without explanation), all the section said was that he, Amash and Schweikert had been stripped of their assignments and that they had written a letter demanding to know why that had happened. Not then supplying the reason for their removal, which received significant attention at the time, would be wrong. Tiller54 (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the discussion tag, because the stubborn question of inclusion was obviously moot, having been clearly answered long before it was asked. This discussion is *not* about whether to include the word, but rather how to include it. Not unlike SilkTork's direction, I read the given sources in detail and I copy edited to clarify the accuracy of the quotes to include a source's self-expurgation, as well as the meaning of those quotes. Now it is more clear that this is not a personal insult or anything vulgar in itself, but rather a description of a response to three ousted people's reportedly insulting and vulgar behavior. All of those quotes are needed, in order to contextualize the severity of the situation and just how wrong they thought not only the subject's original behavior was, but how wrong his explanation of it also was. It is not Wikipedia's job to soften, apologize for, historically revise, or otherwise alter reality. Furthermore, speaking personally as one who previously had no idea of what a person might call the "critical reception" of this subject's career amongst his own immediate colleagues, I am now much more informed by multiple reliable sources about the subject's career and this overall situation. I'm glad we could improve the article. Thanks! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 16:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit has much improved the section, though I have just re-added in the letter that the three sent to Boehner demanding to know why they were removed. Tiller54 (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CFredkin has once again claimed Talk page consensus by way of reverting our consensus, and will be reported for edit warring as per WP:3RR, WP:OWNER, WP:TEND, and WP:ICANTHEARYOU. As was extensively reported on his since-deleted Talk page, this tactic is called tendentious editing. Everyone should feel free to join in on adding to the report. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 17:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So far in this discussion, Smuckola and Tiller54 have supported keeping the "a-hole factor" reference. User:Arbor8 and I are in favor of removing it. User:SilkTork has proposed alternative language ("inability to work with others") which appears to be a reasonable compromise. However Smuckola has reverted my attempt to implement it.CFredkin (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to reiterate that you're in favor of doing something that's wrong, as per reality and hence Wikipedia policy. I don't mean to differ but you clearly do. You have an overwhelming trend of tendentious editing tactics: stubbornly deleting factually and reliably sourced content from Wikipedia, contrary to obvious consensus, to the extent of edit wars, in order to shape a point of view, and then removing the evidence.[1] I mean you do a lot of accurate contributions, but stop this. Furthermore, what SilkTork *said* he/she was against, is narrowly selecting that one portion of the quote because it's unclear alone, and then gave the fuller quote for contextual clarity.— Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 17:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, it was an inappropriate closure of an *illegitimate* RfC, as we had initially established. This was just an obstructionist extension of the tendentious editing tactic, to use the system against itself. I knew that CFredkin had violated the protocol for starting one, as we said, but I wasn't aware that there was a protocol for closing one. Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite "Asshole factor" is ambiguous. It could mean anything. I don't see the point of having an ambiguous quote. Since we seem to know what he means by this we would be better paraphrasing it. This is a better way to present information in Wikipedia in general. AIRcorn (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Didn't you see that I did edit it yesterday to explain exactly what he meant? There is no ambiguity anymore at all. There's no real way, no reason, and no point in trying, to represent this without quotations. Quotations are *good*. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 14:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was not following the article, just popped by to leave a comment because one was requested (have been doing that on most recent RFCs). I will strongly disagree with you regarding quotes. I find them a lazy way of presenting information and they geneally make an article more difficult to read. They should only be used sparingly. The paragraph in question consists almost entirely of quotes. That is definitely not good. In fact now that I think about it that whole paragraph needs a rewrite, not just the aforementioned quote. AIRcorn (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed compromise is based on a quote that's already in both the article and the Politico source being referenced.CFredkin (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. But what is the rationale of quoting that and not quoting the other comment? Just because it says "asshole"? Wikipedia is not censored. Cwobeel (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize what I believe are the points against including it that are expressed above... It's not appropriate for an encyclopedia article; it's ambiguous (not clear); and it's not notable. My personal opinion is aligned with the first two points.CFredkin (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite Per SilkTork. The other part of the quote is much clearer to understand. I personally agree that WP is not censored, and must deal with reality, so I am not opposed to the wording per se, but given the alternative makes the article more clear and is still a quotes from the same source it seems like the way to go. Thenub314 (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thenub314: Hi, Thenub314, I'm wondering if you also missed the fact that it *was* long since rewritten and *isn't* unclear. Just checking. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 04:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know wiki's what was rewritten today can be rewritten tomorrow. If you don't express your opinion in RfC's like this, someone could change it back tomorrow. I agree the current version is clear. Although, if you were to ask me specifically about the use of the "asshole factor" in the current version, it strikes me as rather unnecessary. It is perfectly clear without it. Being a BLP I think we can do without the "Conrgessman so and so called him an asshole". Thenub314 (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thenub314: Okay that's cool. But did you read the original consensus and rationale therein? What you have just characterized, is not the issue. This is not saying that someone called someone something. This is saying that a high authority within his own peer group stripped him of a high rank, for which he is said in this very article to have been notable for having held, because his peers and superiors consider him to be egregiously the worst of the worst. Essential to his career, this event in itself was notable. And they thought he was not just bad, but so profanely abusive that only profanity can be used to describe it. And this inclusion is done in a way that conforms to (if not required by) all prevailing Wikipedia policies. So I can understand if you have a viewpoint that conforms to Wikipedia policy, but only if it's actually about the issue at hand. If the issue was as you said, I would completely agree. This case is unprecedented in my experience, except maybe for a biography that was titled Who The F*#k is Arthur Fogel?". In that case, I did everything I could to not explicitly name the biography in the article body, though I had to cite it in the references. Another editor saw fit to name it explicitly in the body and I can't complain. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 16:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Smuckola: I take your point, and you have a very reasonable point of view about this. Personally I think you did an excellent job discussing how egregiously it was without profanity. But it is a fair opinion to have that you must use profanity to convey the magnitude of the comments I just disagree. I did just notice though the original source no where does it mention the phrase "asshole". Our quote should really either be listed as "their inability to work with other members, which some people might refer to as the [asshole] factor.", since we are editing that word in. Or we should list it as it is actually in the article "their inability to work with other members, which some people might refer to as the a—hole factor." My mastery of English language has been frequently criticized, but my use of profanity is well renowned. So I would comment that people frequently use the term a-hole as a polite form of asshole (as one might use arsehole or feck in the UK). Is there any indication that during the interview the spokesperson actually said "asshole" vs "a—hole"? Thenub314 (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thenub314: I appreciate the appeal to reason, since that's all we have left, after the subject of the article totally threw decency out the window for us. I'm sorry to say it again, that it sounds like you are apparently referring to a version of the article that predates this discussion. It was part of the thread originator's tendentious POV-shaping tactics, to obstinately reiterate that at one point, so maybe that's why. See the current version [2], in which I had made exactly the edit that you are suggesting. Also, I don't know what source you're reading, but the sources given in the article do say a self bowdlerized "a--hole". Furthermore, you see in this thread, my multiple attempts to represent the essential quotations as prose. It hasn't been pretty. I believe that it just can't be reasonably done and shouldn't and needn't be attempted. Thus, given the points of the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policy that Tillman54 and I began with above, based on censorship, point of view funneling, quotations, and the perhaps somewhat inferior policy about offensive content, the remaining discussion pushed by the thread originator is "but does Wikipedia *really* mean it, about WP:CENSOR? Surely it's okay when *I* do it, right?" And finally, it's not even about censorship; everyone here has to ask themselves what they think about being utilized as a pawn in one editor's personal political agenda against the entire encyclopedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, for which arbitrations are underway. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 18:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thenub314: whoops, okay I just saw your follow-up. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 18:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

  • Quote the words he said, as he said them. The tone in which he chose to make the remark - the specific vocabulary he chose to use - is very highly relevant. So we should not bowdlerise.
  • Don't self-censor by avoiding using a quote which contains 'bad language', because Wikipedia is not censored.
  • The question of whether the sentence is in an appropriate WP:TONE does not apply here, because it's a direct quote.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potential point of clarification... The "a-hole factor" quote is not attributed to the subject of the BLP, but was stated as part of a comment about him.CFredkin (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for info, same principles apply IMO. Inclusion/exclusion should be decided on the basis of the usual WP principles, not 'bad' language. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed this in a back and forth above, but to give it a bit more prominence. Our source actually never uses the word "asshole". They instead use "a—hole". If we include this, shouldn't we include it as it appears in our source? IMO people do verbally use both words for different levels of emphasis. Thenub314 (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For pretty much the reasons Balaenoptera musculus listed. Useitorloseit (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

pov

[edit]

this article seems to be heavily bias as if distributed by his team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjblackwill (talk • contribs) 02:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got that feeling in some of it, but I don't know enough about politics to discern whether some of the verbiage is neutral (industry-wide standard lingo, in a junk industry defined by peacocks) or actual peacock words. We have certainly made it more neutral in the last few months. It used to say junk like "shocking landslide" or something like that. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk)

Anti gay activism at SCOTUS hearings

[edit]

This is brand new news as of today & needs more sources, but Huelskamp is apparently taking an active role in protests going on at SCOTUS as they debate marriage equality. He's making a huge political issue. Putting this here to collect more sources & see if anything more noteworthy happens. http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2015/04/28/antigay-heckler-dragged-out-supreme-court JamesG5 (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tim Huelskamp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Huelskamp&oldid=1228663194"