Talk:Duncan D. Hunter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Paragraph doesn't make sense

The following paragraph at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_D._Hunter> needs editing. I do not understand it.

“Hunter is a United States Marine and veteran of both the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan. He is one of only two members of the U.S. Congress, along with John Boccieri (D-OH), to have served in both conflicts and the only combat veteran of either serving in the Congress[1]”.

First it says Hunter is one of two members to have served in BOTH conflicts (NOTE: i.e., combat). Then it says “. . . and the only combat veteran serving in the Congress”. Those are mutually exclusive statements. Together, they don’t make sense.

Thanks, FES Jakarta, Indonesia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.166.73.124 (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You're confusing yourself by equating conflict with combat. There's a difference between serving in a conflict and serving in combat. One can serve in a conflict without fighting, e.g. in headquarters, rear support, communications, air traffic control, etc. When one is in combat, one is with other soldiers who are fighting. 173.49.135.190 (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Issue with ribbons

Based on this page, the Iraq Campaign Medal page, and the Afghanistan Campaign Medal page, there should be three stars on the ICM and one on the ACM. If wikipedia pages aren't good enough references, I can give better references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean118 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Rep. Duncan Hunter Prepares Alternative List of Defense Budget Efficiencies

http://thestatecolumn.com/state_politics/california/rep-duncan-hunter-prepares-alternative-list-of-defense-budget-efficiencies/

Apparently he has a list of 57 communists in the state department, er a list of defense cuts that target other congressional districts, but he's not ready to share it yet. When he does it should be worth a mention here, not least for being his first big fight. Hcobb (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should section off the tenure section to different sections relating to fields of policy. For instance, a foreign policy, a immigration, a military & veterans affairs section, etc.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Obama policy

I have tagged the statement "...Obama policy of putting the Afghanistan army..." as failing verification. The reference used does not support the content. Only in the comment section does it mention President Obama. Therefore, without verification according to WP:BLP it could theoretically be removed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not just change the statement to mean whatever Hunter meant? Athene cunicularia (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I had already edited twice, and not wanting to appear to be disruptive, or appear to be engaging in edit warring, I thought it best to tag the content, and start a discussion.

I had (first) attempted to modify the content, and it was basically reverted (which is keeping with WP:BRD even if the editor did not directly say so), so making additional changes to content other than tagging would not be part of the normal civil consensus building process.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

So do we put in Hunter's direct quote?

"Frankly I was very skeptical last year when I went last and have been on whether they can do this, but they are."

Is that any clearer? Hcobb (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The wording of the most recent edit is needs tweaking. Reading the source provided, Hunter wrote in opposition of a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces, an unreliable Afghan Leadership, concerns regarding roadside bombs, and what he saw as "Obama administration's other shortcomings" which he termed "mixed messages" to American service members and the world. And as stated by the Administration in 2012, there are were no plans for a complete withdraw; which had changed as recently as recently as this month to possible withdrawal after 2014. Therefore, upon closer review the summarization of the source is wrong.

As for the second part, I would say the best way to word it would be something like:

After visiting Afghanistan in October 2012, Hunter said "Frankly I was very skeptical last year when I went last and have been on whether they [Afghan forces] can do this, but they are."

So in the end I am proposing the following wording:

In 2011, Hunter wrote in ''[[Politico]]'' that he is opposed to a complete withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan, and was concerned of the challenge of an "unreliable Afghan leadership".<ref>{{cite news |title=How to handle Afghanistan |author=Duncan D. Hunter |url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56116.html |newspaper=Politico |date=3 June 2011 |accessdate=26 January 2013}}</ref> After a visit to Afghanistan in October 2012, Hunter returned with a more upbeat assessment, stating "Frankly I was very skeptical last year when I went last and have been on whether [the Afghans] can do this, but they are."<ref>{{cite news |title=Hunter reports progress in Afghan war effort |author=Gretel C. Kovach |url=http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/oct/20/hunter-reports-progress-in-afghan-war-effort/ |newspaper=San Diego Union Tribune |date=20 October 2013 |accessdate=26 January 2013}}</ref>

The alteration of the quote is keeping with MOS:QUOTE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me, if you fix the spelling and grammar issues. Hcobb (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Please elaborate, how can the above proposed text be improved. I am not above grammar and spelling errors, and it always helps to have a second eye regarding these things.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

My rewrite, if you like: (Removing things like where he wrote, and fixing other stuff, like tenses.)

In 2011, Hunter wrote of his doubts about the Obama administration plans for Afghanistan, which he perceived to be a complete American withdrawal and a handover to an "unreliable Afghan leadership".<ref>{{cite news |title=How to handle Afghanistan |author=Duncan D. Hunter |url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56116.html |newspaper=Politico |date=3 June 2011 |accessdate=26 January 2013}}</ref> Hunter returned from his October 2012 visit to Afghanistan with a more upbeat assessment, stating "Frankly I was very skeptical last year when I went last and have been on whether [the Afghans] can do this, but they are."<ref>{{cite news |title=Hunter reports progress in Afghan war effort |author=Gretel C. Kovach |url=http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/oct/20/hunter-reports-progress-in-afghan-war-effort/ |newspaper=San Diego Union Tribune |date=20 October 2013 |accessdate=26 January 2013}}</ref>

Agreeable? Hcobb (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not see the need to see the need to mention the Obama Administration, as per the links above, up until 2012 there was no mention of a complete withdrawal by the Administration, nor does Duncan state in the Politico commentary that he is describing the plan in Afghanistan at the time as a withdrawal. That is a mischaracterization of the Politico article, IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Then let's go with:

In 2011, Hunter wrote of his doubts about the clarity of the Obama administration's plans for Afghanistan and of a handover to an "unreliable Afghan leadership".

Okay? Hcobb (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

After looking over the Politico source, I think it's worth mentioning the Obama administration. However, some other details of the paragraph can be reduced.

In 2011, Hunter opposed a complete withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan, citing an "unreliable Afghan leadership" and calling on the Obama administration to "stop echoing a misshapen worldview that puts American interests last."<ref>{{cite news |title=How to handle Afghanistan |author=Duncan D. Hunter |url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56116.html |newspaper=Politico |date=3 June 2011 |accessdate=26 January 2013}}</ref> However, Hunter changed his position after visiting the country in October 2012: "Frankly I was very skeptical last year when I went last and have been on whether [the Afghans] can do this, but they are."<ref>{{cite news |title=Hunter reports progress in Afghan war effort |author=Gretel C. Kovach |url=http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/oct/20/hunter-reports-progress-in-afghan-war-effort/ |newspaper=San Diego Union Tribune |date=20 October 2013 |accessdate=26 January 2013}}</ref>

Thoughts? Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

How about:

In 2011, Hunter opposed a complete withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan, citing the concern of an "unreliable Afghan leadership" and called upon the [[Obama Administration]] to "stop echoing a misshapen worldview that puts American interests last."<ref>{{cite news |title=How to handle Afghanistan |author=Duncan D. Hunter |url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56116.html |newspaper=Politico |date=3 June 2011 |accessdate=26 January 2013}}</ref> In October 2012, Hunter returned from his visit to Afghanistan, as part of a [[congressional delegation]], with a more upbeat assessment stating "Frankly I was very skeptical last year when I went last and have been on whether [the Afghans] can do this, but they are."<ref>{{cite news |title=Hunter reports progress in Afghan war effort |author=Gretel C. Kovach |url=http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/oct/20/hunter-reports-progress-in-afghan-war-effort/ |newspaper=San Diego Union Tribune |date=20 October 2013 |accessdate=26 January 2013}}</ref>

I think this merges the two other proposals, and adds the mention of the Obama Administration which there is majority of active editors who feel that it's necessary to mention (although I still maintain my position).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hearing no objections I will put into the article space the most recent proposal. This can be reverted per WP:BRD if there are significant issues.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I like it. Good work! Athene cunicularia (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the green fleet?

Why delete any mention of what exactly the man is complaining about? Hcobb (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem in mentioning the fleet, however, this article is not for point, counterpoint, statement, rebuttal IMHO. Most biography articles about politicians, that I am aware of, work that way. Perhaps an wikilink to Navy's effort in using non-petroleum fuel sources could be used.

Presently an article about the "green fleet" article or section does not exist anywhere in Wikipedia, that I am aware of. The appropriate place for explanation on what the "green fleet" is is not in this biography article (if there are people interested in reading about it presently they can read the source or do a google search). The appropriate place for content regarding the "green fleet" is probably at United States Navy#21st century, with links to Synthetic fuel and/or Biofuel. There are multiple primary and secondary sources regarding the "green fleet" which can be used.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If the term isn't that important then how about "Hunter suggested other places to cut the defense budget" and not elaborate? Hcobb (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

That is a compromise I can agree with.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Message to Congressman Hunter

Congressman Hunter; First let me thank you for both you military service and you civil service to our nation. I had the honor of hearing you speak a couple of years ago and I agree with your approach to solutions for many our national problems. I want to ask for your help in investigating a procedure being used by ICE or "border patrol", forgive me for not using the correct terms but it is difficult to keep up with the changing organizational structures. Each day I drive I15 from Temecula to San Diego. Over the past year or so I notice that Ice or border patrol vehicles park with their vehicle lights shining across the freeway lanes I never see any activity such as apprehensions which presumably would be the intent of this activity. Instead, I believe this activity is nothing more that a ruse to make travelers believe that something is in fact being. I am uncomfortable seeing my tax dollars flowing out the exhaust pipe of vehicle that are not performing any legitimate function. I would most appreciate if you could look into this apparently useless activity and report what the intent of it is. I would pursue this under FOIA but I'm sure it would be fruitless to do so.

Once again thank you for all you do in support of our nation and our way of life.

D USN retired — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.85.89 (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! This is not the right place to put that message. There is almost no chance that Congressman Hunter will see it. You should go to his Congressional page at http://hunter.house.gov/ , click on the "contact me" button, and send him an email. --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Congressman's Service Years of Service

The congressman served on Active Duty from 2001 - 2005. He was recalled to Active Duty for an additional deployment to Afghanistan in 2007. Once he returned he returned back to the Reserves. In total his years of service should be from 2001 to current NOT 2001-2007.

Legere

Hunter has questioned the qualifications of Mary A. Legere to lead the Defense Intelligence Agency, given her involvement with the DCGS-A, which competes with the products of Palantir Technologies, which is based in the state he represents.

Not supported? Which part? Quoting at length from the given source...

• Hunter criticized Deputy Chief of Staff for U.S. Army Intelligence Lt. Gen. Mary Legere’s involvement in a controversial Army intelligence project, the Distributed Common Ground System-Army (DCGS-A) program, in a letter to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

• Hunter said Legere held “principal responsibility for failing to deliver urgent capabilities to the warfighter and overseeing initiatives that have repeatedly failed to meet budget and schedule requirements.”

• Soldiers in Afghanistan have said the program is slow and difficult to use and that another program, Palantir, developed by a company in Hunter's home state, is easier to use.

So what part is not supported? Hcobb (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

But if you want additional sourcing, please read

• http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/22/congressman-battles-army-officials-over-why-soldiers-dont-have-bomb-predicting-software/
• http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78874.html
• http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/Aug/03/hunter-ieds-and-campaign-contributions/

Etc. Hcobb (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems well sourced; the source specifically mentions the possibility of a link involving the two companies so that is not WP:SYNTHESIS. And it's only one sentence so it's not WP:UNDUE. --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

My initial objection was due to missing the reference to Palantir in the source. My mistake. However, the suggestion of the statement in the BLP (conflict of interest) is actually not the focal point of the sources. So it is WP:undue. But even more importantly, why is his objection to the appointment of a government official notable to his BLP?CFredkin (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I was evaluating the sentence and its sources, not the overall question of whether the information is worth including at all. The implication of conflict of interest is pretty well countered by the UT article, which points out that the makers of Palantir have not contributed to Hunter while the owners of the other company have donated substantial amounts to him. But if we put that in too, for balance, then we are getting into WP:undue territory. I kind of agree with you, CFredkin, that his opposition to a nomination is pretty trivial to include here - and that if we included a sentence about every nomination he has objected to, it would overwhelm the article. Anyone else have an opinion? --MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

DCGS-A is a special interest of Hunter's.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/18/exclusive_pentagon_withholds_report_2.7_billion_intel_program "That's something that the Army has been stubbornly resistant to acknowledge, even though Palantir as a plug-in would solve the Army's problems and deliver soldiers a whole new set of capabilities that they have yet to acquire," he said. "From day one, the problems with DCGS have been apparent but so too has the solution."

So it's odd to completely avoid the subject. Hcobb (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's not the focus of the content you're posting.CFredkin (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

These additional refs simply show that Hunter's made a major deal out of the issue for years.

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/blog-999-hunter-pushes-for-ied-software-connected-to-his-mentor.html In 2012, Palantir employed three different lobbying firms at a cost of $120,000 per quarter. The most expensive of the lot is a Cassidy & Associates lobbyist named Terry Paul, who collects $80,000 per quarter from Palantir according to his 2012 disclosures.
...
And here's Paul passionately stumping for Duncan D. Hunter on the campaign trail:

Hcobb (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

If the issue is that Hunter is a critic of DCGS and supports Palantir - which is well documented - then let's say so. That's a significant item for his biography, not the fact that he said he might oppose a nomination that hasn't even been made yet. How about something like this (and please don't add or delete anything in the article until we reach consensus here -no edit warring please!):

Hunter has been a strong critic of the DCGS-A system for handling battlefield intelligence and data, and he has urged the Army to instead use the system made by Palantir Technologies, a company in his district. (reference from The Blaze) Hunter has stated that if Lt. Gen. Mary A. Legere is nominated to head the Defense Intelligence Agency, he would oppose her nomination because of her support of the DCGS-A system. (reference from The Hill)

--MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Not in his district. "developed in California’s Silicon Valley", is almost 500 miles from San Diego. Hcobb (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph should indicate why he likes one system better than the other. As your suggested paragraph stands, it implies he just likes the one from his district because it is from his district (if it is from his district at all, per Hcobb). That information (and any about paid lobbying) could be included, certainly, but there should also be material explaining his objections to DCGS. As a reader, I want to know if he has a good reason for objecting to it, beyond any of the strictly political aspects. Does that make sense? Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm striking "in his district"; sorry, thought I had read that. If we have to get into a bunch of detail about the respective merits of the two systems, it will become too much information for a biography. Two referenced sentences seems like about the right weight to me. --MelanieN (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hunter's stated reasons covered at DCGS-A#Comparisons Hcobb (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed text:

Hunter has strongly criticized the Army's continued use of and advocacy for its internally-developed DCGS-A system for tracking battlefield intelligence. An evaluation of alternative technology by Palantir Technologies indicated that it was more effective at identifying IED's and preferred by Army personnel. However the evaluation was later altered by Army officials. Hunter has requested an explanation for the revision of the report and blocked the nomination of Lt. Gen. Mary A. Legere to head the Defense Intelligence Agency, because of her support of the DCGS-A system.CFredkin (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with this version on several grounds. It is one-sided. It is beyond the scope of this biography article. And it's not true that he has "blocked" her nomination - she hasn't actually been nominated. He has merely indicated he will oppose her if she is nominated. --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to revise. I sourced it primarily from the Politico article.CFredkin (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

How about something like this?

Hunter has strongly criticized the Army's use of its internally-developed DCGS-A system for tracking battlefield intelligence. He says that an alternative technology developed by Palantir Technologies is more effective at identifying IEDs and is preferred by Army personnel.(reference from The Blaze) Hunter says that if Lt. Gen. Mary A. Legere is nominated to head the Defense Intelligence Agency, he will oppose her because of her support of the DCGS-A system. (reference from The Hill)

--MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

But it's not just his opinion. The following is from the Politico article:

In the first three months of this year, the division reported a 12 percent increase in the number of IEDs found and cleared after switching to the Palantir software, according to a story in The Washington Times.

In April, the Army Operational Test Command conducted a survey of Palentir’s product. Of the 100 service members and contractors surveyed, 96 of them recommended it, according to internal documents obtained by POLITICO. The Army recommended offering a one-week training course and adding more servers to support the software.

Then in May, Col. Joseph Martin, who directs the Operational Test Command, sent an internal memo redacting the report and replacing it with another one that simply recommended further study of the program. It also deleted some of the positive remarks by those surveyed.CFredkin (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

So cut this down to fit with Hunter.

Hunter has questioned the effectiveness of the US Army's DCGS-A system and has suggested that the products of California company Palantir Technologies should be used instead.

Then DCGS-A article can include mention of Legere, using refs like this:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113484/how-pentagon-boondoggle-putting-soldiers-danger

Hcobb (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that's even less accurate.CFredkin (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

In what way is in inaccurate in reflecting Hunter's views? Hcobb (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It makes it sounds like his views are not based on any objective evidence.CFredkin (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hunter has highlighted soldiers' concerns over the US Army's DCGS-A system and their requests that the products of California company Palantir Technologies should be used instead.

Better? Hcobb (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

No, not better. This gives the status of facts to their "concerns" and "requests", but we do not have independent reliable sources saying that there are concerns and requests. We are reporting what he says, without comment as to whether he is correct or not. It would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to try to prove that he is right or wrong. We are not performing FactCheck here. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I do think, per suggestion above, that we should give some idea why he feels this way. That's why I inserted the "He says that..." sentence into my latest proposed version. To say "he says" doesn't imply that it isn't true, merely that this is why he is making an issue of it. This article is not the place to get into the pros and cons of the system, or who is right or wrong about it; maybe the DCGS-A article could use some of this information. People who are curious can click on that link. However, The New Republic is not a neutral publication, it is a "magazine of commentary"; and the article is not neutral, it is editorializing. If you are going to put stuff into that article about the recall of the original report and all that, you need a source that is less POV. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have died down so I went ahead and added the two sentences to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

DHS conspiring to hide terrorist infiltration from American people

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/08/politics/jeh-johnson-duncan-hunter-isis/ "A high level source informed the congressman -- it was also said that DHS is actively discouraging any talk of IS on the border," Kasper said.

We're suppressing what the congressman says because he's an unreliable source? Hcobb (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Damn right he is an unreliable source! Certainly compared to DHS. He is claiming to know stuff from an unnamed "high level source" which could mean anything or nothing. DHS says his allegation is categorically untrue. Your conspiracy theories have no place here. Meanwhile, I was the one who deleted the item about DHS's rebuttal to his claims. My reasoning was that we hadn't found his infiltration claims notable, so we shouldn't find the rebuttal notable. But if he is going to persist with his "terrorist infiltration" claim, and if major sources start to report on it, the controversy will become notable and I will put back the edit that I deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And he has unreliable backup for his claims. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/oct/08/hunter-claim-terrorists-ISIS-ISIL-US-mexico/

Oops! Ain't ISIL. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/09/us-usa-security-kurds-idUSKCN0HY2JP20141009?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews Hcobb (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this is a one-day story. If Hunter wants to keep pushing it so that it becomes a more notable issue, we can add something then. It's really up to him at this point. --MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-unsure-how-respond-duncan-hunters-allegations Of course, if Hunter is correct, it’s an extraordinarily big deal. And if the congressman is brazenly lying about a major national security threat, that’s arguably pretty important, too. Hcobb (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

What you say is true - on both points. It would be a huge deal. (It's also possible that he is neither correct nor brazenly lying - that he is simply misinformed, perhaps relying on rumors relayed to him by border patrol agents.) However, we can't go drawing conclusions on our own (per WP:OR) - or based on partisan sources like Maddow. If neutral mainstream sources pick up this story and keep it alive, and start pointing out things like this, then we can go with it. Right now it looks like the story has not lived past its 24 hour news cycle, except in partisan sources. BTW I reworded your addition to the article about Hunter voting against arming Syrian rebels; that source didn't mention Hunter's allegations about the border. --MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

As his (apparently absurd) claims continue to be mentioned in the media, I think they will certainly be a part of his biography and probably need to be covered here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I say leave it out per WP:NOTNEWS, if it receives continuing significant coverage post election, then the weight of reliable sources will show us that it should also have weight in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

He's back. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/duncan-hunter-ready-another-round Hcobb (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Duncan D. Hunter. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080511170531/http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/voters/results/primary.xml to http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/voters/results/primary.xml

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Duncan D. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130506165548/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2008-general/sov_complete.pdf to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2008-general/sov_complete.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121224021529/http://www.sos.ca.gov:80/elections/sov/2012-general/sov-complete.pdf to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2012-general/sov-complete.pdf

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) 17:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Equal pay section does not have NPOV

This section reads like editorializing from someone who disagrees with the Congressman:

He voted against equal pay for equal work in 2009 (Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act).

The LL Fair Pay Act amends the statutes of limitations on when a suit can be brought for pay discrimination. The current way it is written overstates the effect of the act and does not sound neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsirisMuhammad (talk • contribs)

I agree with you. I have rewritten it. I also merged that one-sentence "Equal pay" section into a new section called "Gender issues". --MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not familiar enough with Wiki guidelines to make an edit, but I would like to point out that in the Gender Issues section the line "In February 2013, Hunter voted in favor of renewing the Violence Against Women Act." is directly contradicted two sections later in the Immigration section with the line "He voted against renewing the Violence Against Women Act..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.74.121.54 (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section gives significant weight to the 2017 "Campaign finance investigation". While it should be included in the lead in some form, there is zero weight given to entire other sections in this article, specifically the sections titled "Military service" & "U.S. House of Representatives".
As far as the body the Political positions is a new section compared to when I last edited this page in 2015; it can use more balance from sources, as some sections are entirely sourced to a source from only one side of the political spectrum.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree the lead could use improvements, but 57 words of the 339 words in the lead focus on the campaign finance investigation. I am confused what leads you to believe excessive weight has been given to this. I think that if you feel his issue positions aren't emphasized enough other than the 14 word section, then you should improve that part.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Indictment?

I've seen online reports that the subject has been indicted. Can we confirm this? Bearian (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it has been confirmed. Bearian (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Inheriting his father's Congressional seat

So how does one inherit a Congressional seat? I don't think they are inheritable. Hopefully someone can replace this sentence with more accurate language. MovingtoMontana (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent events and politics

@MelanieN: Given the politically charged nature of recent accusations made upon the subject of this article, and the father of the subject of the article considering that event a "last minute hit", perhaps it would be best to place this article under WP:ARBAPDS? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary. I just checked the articles of several, far more controversial congressmen and cabinet members than Hunter, and none of them are under that level of sanction. --MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Ammar Campa-Najjar in lead

It has been my observation that the name of the opponent of a politician in a recent race is common in the lead of an article of an active politician is not common. Therefore why has it been added to the lead of this article? To mention that the subject is under incitement is appropriate, that the subject is facing reelection is appropriate, but the opponents name, IMHO is not. Also the opponent does not meet WP:POLITICIAN, yet.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The opponent is mentioned in the 2018 election section, that is enough. I have removed it from the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Thanks. Perhaps the heritage of the opponent should be included, specifically relations to someone notable for a single event (here is a corroborating reliable source from March 2018, and from February 2018)?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You insist that the opponent should be removed from the lede, but now suggest that something about the grandfather of the opponent be included in the body? I never even met my grandfather. I assume I must be missing something here. O3000 (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

RCLC, I can't imagine any reason to mention the ancestry or ethnicity of the opponent in the article about Hunter - unless it is to imply that there is something sinister about the opponent. I will AGF that that wasn't what you had in mind. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Why would mentioning a notable ancestor be sinister? This article mentions the notable ancestor of this article's subject, his father, a former congressman. Implying that mentioning an ancestor is sinister shocks me.

Come to think about it, it is outside of the scope of this article, giving a biography of the subject of the article's subject's opponent, and would be better off on the article about the election, and if Campa-Najjar wins the election, in that individual's biography article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Right now it doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all; we don't do biographies of candidates for office who don't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO in their own right. In the case of a non-notable, non-elected candidate, our practice is to list only their name and party affiliation at the election article, with a redirect from the person's name to the election article. You know that. Yes, if he wins, then he will get a biography, which will include this fact you are so eager to add now. And RCNC, please don't pretend you don't understand why it would imply something sinister about the candidate to "mention a notable ancestor" who happens to have been a terrorist. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Right now the lead says "Hunter became nationally known for repeatedly attacking his Democratic opponent Ammar Campa-Najjar over his half-Palestinian heritage" citing https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/opinion/disaster-candidates-beyond-trump.html . But this is not true and not neutral point of view, citing an anti-Trump op-ed in the New York Times. Hunter is attacking not the Palestinians, but the fact that his opponent's grandfather was a terrorist. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Given that the 2018 election is a minor part of the overall article, and although it did get national attention, it is not a significant part of the article thus per WP:LEAD I would argue it is given WP:UNDUE weight. The current indictment has due weight in the lead.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 05:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Whether to include this quote?

Several papers have noted that when Hunter couldn't arrange for a tour of a naval facility in Italy, he told his chief of staff to "tell the Navy to go fuck themselves". That was put into our article a few days ago, and I removed it as inflammatory and unnecessary detail. Now I see someone has restored it [1] so I think the proper thing to do is seek consensus whether to include it or not. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Whether the lead should include his attacks on his 2018 opponent

@Snooganssnoogans and RightCowLeftCoast: RCLC removed paragraph about his attacks on his opponent’s ethnic background from the lead saying removed content per WP:LEAD, no other campaign information is in the lead giving the 2018 campaign undue weight, also WP:RECENTISM; also removed content per WP:BURDEN).[2] Snoogans restored it saying nope, this is what he's known for. running one of the most grotesquely racist campaigns in recent memory. added source. OK, let’s leave it in for now since it is longstanding content, but let’s talk about it. IMO I think it should be removed. It is highly unusual to include campaign claims, even controversial ones, in the lead of an article. IMO this is NOT what he is known for; he is best known for being indicted, which is already in the lead. I would say, Snoogans, that the reference you added does not support your claim that the attacks are what is is known for, merely that they were being made by him and others supporting him. If you Google his name, most of what comes up is about his indictment and upcoming trial. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see that RCLC has just added to his section above about mentioning Campa-Najjar in the lead. I hadn't realized he had brought it up before. Let's discuss it here in a new section, with due regard for what was said there. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The source I added was for a "citation needed" tag that had been added previously. Not necessarily to substantiate the claim of notoriety. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, well, can you substantiate the claim that his attacks on his opponent are notable enough to be included in the lead? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Running a campaign widely described by RS as "anti-Muslim ("one of the most brazenly anti-Muslim smear campaigns in recent history" by one RS[3]). There is nothing that he's done in his entire life, besides getting indicted for corruption, that has earned him as much coverage as his anti-Muslim smear campaign. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, that's fair. I still favor removing it, but let's see what others say. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I have changed my opinion, and can admit I was wrong before, while including it in the body of the article in the sub-section about the 2018 campaign is appropriate, given the weight of other content in this article, mentioning the 2018 campaign in the lead would give that one campaign out of several undue weight. Furthermore, giving the most recent campaign a highlighted position, when no other past campaign is mentioned shows WP:RECENTISM.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 16:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a weak argument. None of his other campaigns have been notable in the slightest. It was one of the least competitive districts in the country until 2018. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't care if the above editor believes that my opinion is a "weak argument", I still stand by my position that including content about the 2018 campaign, and only that campaign, gives that one campaign undue weight. So far the above editor is the only one who appears to want to keep it in the lead, and I haven't been convinced that it should be kept there. So unless consensus changes, present consensus is that it be removed.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I dispute became nationally known regarding these comments - Steve King might be nationally known for his comments, Duncan D. Hunter is not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not think the text should say "nationally known". I don't even think it should say that about King. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I see that "nationally known" has been removed. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, where do we stand? RCLC and I favor removing the paragraph from the lead. Snoogans favors keeping it in. Anyone else have an opinion? power~enwiki? O3000? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Alas, grotesquely racist campaign antics hardly seem notable these days. It’s well covered in the body and I don’t think it’s needed in the lead. If it's still under discussion months from now, it could be reinserted. O3000 (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I was hoping to avoid commenting here, I guess I have to. I'd suggest not including it in the lede; material about election campaigns is almost never prominent enough to justify being in the article lede of politicians, and I see no reason this is any different. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I see that RCLC has removed it from the lead. I concur that there was consensus to take it out. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Favor keeping paragraph with the amplification that 2018 attack on opponent was based on Campa-Najjar being the grandson of Black September terrorist leader Muhammad Yousef Najjar, rather than generic ethnic origin. JSJB (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

At the time of the 2018 election it was known that Hunter's opponent is the grandson of Black September terrorist leader Muhammad Yousef Najjar, who planned the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. This is a relevant fact for the campaign as it calls into question the claims that Hunter was merely attacking his opponents on racist lines. Suppressing this material fact degrades Wikipedia into a propaganda sheet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSJB (talk • contribs) 12:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Conflicting references

End of Term of Service

Has the subject retired from the Marine Corps Reserve? One source says yes, more than one source says no.

So which is it?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of content

@MelanieN and John from Idegon: an editor B P G PhD (talk · contribs) has began to remove content from the article(1, 2), and I see there was a WP:COI question brought up at the 2nd AfD for a related subject. Is this a concern?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is a big concern. This person is a classic Single Purpose Account. They registered in February 2018, did just enough edits to become autoconfirmed, then created an article about Campa-Najjar. and since that time has made no edits unrelated to that subject or Hunter. Noting that Campa-Najjar is likely to run again in 2020, I think we should be very skeptical of his editing. I will take a look at these recent edits and see what needs to be restored. I will also have a word at their talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast and John from Idegon: After some research I have filed a report at AN. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The user has been indeffed. Let's hope that solves the problem. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Civilians, Fallujah Controversy

Under the law of armed conflict with principle of proportionality, military necessity, and the Rendulic Rule the incidental death of non-combatants as a part of military operations are ruled as permissible in many cases.. Hunter conceded in a interview that his Artillery Unit "probably killed hundreds" of civilians, and used it to defend Eddie Gallagher. This may sound bad, but the mere existence of civilian casualties does not mean that there was necessarily any legal wrongdoing. I reverted the most recent change to his blog which claimed that they were war crimes, there is simply not enough information to reach that conclusion. Thatwhichmay (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

There is not and that is right.Ndołkah (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Deletion

I've restored the deletion here, as it is highly relevant to that discussion, in that the furor was about whether the opponent was Moslem. --2604:2000:E010:1100:45BC:4AF1:1705:5CE9 (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)