Talk:William J. Hughes

Untitled

D Monack: Don't get me wrong, I intend to add that data to the 2nd district article as well, as soon as I get done compiling LoBiondo's chart. That said, sure, it's relevant. Sandman's strength in 1972 with a popular Nixon behind him hints why Hughes declined to run that year, and gives an idea of the holistic background in 2nd district politics (just as discussing events in Manitoba may well be relevant for a Manitoba politician, even if he wasn't in office at the time). And as for 1994 - the fact that the seat "flipped" is very relevant to both Democrats and Republicans. 1994 was a famously bad year for the Dems, but Hughes was a popular incumbent. If he'd run again, maybe the Dems would have held the seat. He didn't, and it flipped. Frankly, this article is woefully short and needs to go more into detail on this (no source yet, but as I recall, he didn't like the negative campaign of 92 and just didn't have the drive to go into what he knew would be a bruising election battle when he could retire and spend time with his family), but the 94 election is certainly relevant to a history about Hughes, in the same way that the 1952 election is relevant to Harry Truman. And... it's two lines.

Also, I prefer prose rather than the italicized source comments, but that's just me. SnowFire 01:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

All of what you describe is analysis and speculation that isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article. We shouldn't be hinting at anything. Either say it outright with a proper source or leave it out. The fact that he was popular in his district is well demonstrated by his ten election victories. Of course the Dems would likely have held on to the seat if Hughes decided to run again, but that can be said of almost any incumbent who retires. Almost every incumbent is popular in his district. Open seats have always been the most likely to switch parties. This says nothing about Hughes. Look at how the 1952 election is handled in the Harry Truman article. Its relevance is explicitly tied to Truman and it mentions that Ike won in a landslide but doesn't give vote totals. --dm ^(talk) 01:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. No, my comments on Hughes are not speculation, they're just not sourced yet- and you'll note I haven't added them to the article yet. This is the talk page, anyway. As for the results of the 72 and 94 elections, those are most certainly not speculation, and the fact that "most incumbents are popular" doesn't mean that said fact doesn't need to be stated in this article as well. I did look at the Truman article, and as you yourself note, it does discuss the 1952 election, so I'm failing to see what the problem is exactly. It's information that is true and relevant to Hughes, and if it seems like "too much" information for the article in its current state, then that's only because the rest of this article is currently woefully undercomplete. SnowFire 02:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line for me is that these other elections are non sequiturs that say nothing about William Hughes. You're reading too much significance into them. These elections are relevant to the district, to Democrats and Republicans who care about such things, but they simply don't say anything about the man this article is supposed to be about.

As for the article being "woefully undercomplete", I think this is a little harsh. This article compares well to biographical articles about other congressmen with similar careers. It of course could be better and I don't want to discourage you from improving it. --dm ^(talk) 19:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on William J. Hughes. 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/20120310144811/http://ftp.resource.org/gpo.gov/bills/104/hr6eh.txt.pdf to http://ftp.resource.org/gpo.gov/bills/104/hr6eh.txt.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205085503/http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/mprsa/AnnualReporttoCongress1986.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/mprsa/AnnualReporttoCongress1986.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080730201058/http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html to http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)