Talk:Robert Hurt (politician)

Easily?

I'm not going to revert because it's such a nit-picky thing, but I don't think we should describe his primary win with "easily." It's just so subjective. Yes, he won by a large margin, but was it "easy"? Arbor8 (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I provided you with reliable sources that say it. I do not see an issue with this. Truthsort (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

How is this appropriate

You've only raised concerns about two portions of my edits, and yet you insist on wholesale removing ALL of my edits without explanation, not just the ones you have a problem with. (Examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]) So since you have a problem with ALL of my edits, why don't you give us a line by line explanation of why every part of the edits you reverted were so egregious as to require reverting without explanation? Otherwise, please refrain from reverting if you don't have a rationale. SayHiWorld (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SayHiWorld, it's pretty stupid that they're deleted verifiable information and refusing to discuss it. I thought people got blocked for removing information while refusing to discuss it.. Why not make good arguments against each specific edit you have a problem with in such a manner that it could easily be responded to. You've had over two weeks to respond so why not make a good argument and give time to respond before removing again. Again, everything in their follows the BLP policies and is verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomprox (talk • contribs) 07:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, please stop removing information without explaining it. This has been here for two weeks and nobody that has removed information has explained why it is wrong. STOP REMOVING STUFF and please explain what's so bad about it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomprox (talk • contribs) 16:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you guys are deleting everything I or anyone else add (I thought anyone could edit wikipedia???) I will explain my newest edits. In these edits, I added mention of the fact that Hurt has accepted congressional health insurance which has been widely reported on. The citation used is from the website of the second largest newspaper in the district. This deserves mention.

I also added information about his bill to repeal part of the consumer protection act in this edit. This also deserves mention and has been reported on by multiple, including national, news sources. Tomprox (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not deleting everything. I'm deleting any and all references to blogs, which are absolutely 100% forbidden from being added to biographies of living persons, per wikimedia foundation policy. Any statements sourced to such blogs are also ripe for removal. The statement of "good for him" for the health care is being misattributed. The editorial blog uses the phrase, but hurt himself did not. So your edit is putting words into the congressman's mouth that he never actually used (I watched the whole video to check). The problem with the bit about openness is that you're engaging in synthesis which is a form of original research where you draw a conclusion (Hurt is an inaccessible hypocrite) based on what one random non-notable individual said and his previous comment saying that he promised to be transparent. The blogs you link to draw this conclusion, but they are unacceptable as sources. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I understand the part about no self-published blogs. That actually seems reasonable. However, Truthsot continues to remove everything without explanation, to a level you haven't gone to, Salisbystars, is there anything that can be done about this as well as his unsubstantiated accusations? If you look closely, I changed the statement to say that he didn't do it because it was "good for him," since a reliable source said so, I think its acceptable although not if it is attributed to him. That is what the current version does (which is after your edits..). I will try to reinclude the information about lobbyist support for his bill, which I feel is crucial, and I believe it is referenced by the following paragraph from the source (FOX Business):

Bursky and Morris are backing Rep. Robert Hurt's (R., Va.) "Small Business Capital Access And Job Preservation Act" introduced last month, seeking to repeal the looming requirement for many private equity funds to register with the SEC. Hurt has only been serving since the beginning of the year and it is uncertain how much support he can garner among Democrats.

If there is a better way to state that, please fix it but include mention of the industry support! Tomprox (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

As you've re-written the bit about the Small Business Capital etc act is fine within wikipedia policy, but it makes the wording awkward, which is why I didn't change it to something like that (I'm not going to revert though as I can't think of a good way to do it yet). Regarding reverts, I try not to wholesale revert anything that has some reasonable edits to it. I can see that you're trying to understand how to properly source edits an article. One reason why Truthsort is wholesale reverting your edits is the fact that there have been a bunch of new editors working on this article (which is highly unusual and tends to make more experienced editors deeply suspicious). So if you don't mind me asking, what brought you to edit the VA-05 articles? I was wondering if there was a blog post or something that sent you here? Oh, one side note, if you're just tweaking formatting for an edit or spelling, you can check the "This is a minor edit" box right above save page. Sailsbystars (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "It's good for him," the way you wrote that is problematic as it sounded like it was Hurt saying it was good for him. One must also be very careful when using the "voice of wikipedia." Sometimes opinion, such as that expressed in that blog post from which that quote came, can be included, but one needs to be careful to indicate that where the opinion came from and that it's not "wikipedia's opinion." Wikipedia strives to attain a neutral point of view, and some of your prior edits were problematic as they tried to bend the article to a particular viewpoint. Sailsbystars (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree the wording is awkward, but you didn't like the way it was before. The whole point of the Dow Jones Newspaper report (reprinted by FOX among others...) was industry support for that bill and it merits inclusion in the article. If you want to take a stab at making it less awkward, that's great. "It's good for him" is what the article said, as I understand it, wikipedia does not cite youtube videos which is what we would be doing if we watched the video. I think I'm sticking to the source pretty well when I say it's good for him. If you think the source gives enough leeway to explain it any other way, feel free, but I'm sure someone will come challenge it.

I came to this post because someone mentioned that it had a particularly positive point of view, and, as you can tell from my username, I am a HUGE Tom Perriello fan, not so much a Robert Hurt fan. I may make random edits here and there but I am not going to be very involved here. I'm just trying to make the article more neutral. Tomprox (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you are not making it neutral but adding a biased POV. The article you provided to source Hurt's bill has more to do with the industry objection of the Frank-Dodd bill than Hurt's bill, which gets just two sentences in the article. Simply put, the bill, as of now, is not notable and you want to mention it to suggest that he is connected with equity firms. Also the Roanoake Times article does not state that he said the healthcare package was "good for him" and the video does not show him saying it either. I've already explained every else here. Stop adding the content or you will be blocked like the last user who attempted to add this junk.[6] Truthsort (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the article dedicates four paragraphs to Hurt's bill. I think that shows notability. You actually failed to explain why the CURRENT format is not okay. So why not tell us what about each part of the edit is so not okay? EVERY part. Why not stop biting newcomers Truthsot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SayHiWorld (talk • contribs) 23:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

{{rfctag|bio|pol}} New editors (including myself) have added some new information to article, some of which has been shown to be inappropriate for wikipedia above by Sailsbystars and has been removed or edited to comply with wikipedia standards. Truthsot has threatened blocks and such but refused to lay out what exactly is bad about edits as can be seen above and in his most recent edit summary simply saying "cut it out". What would be an appropriate course at this point for this article to prevent edit warring? The exact question would be, is it appropriate to remove ALL content because parts of it previously violated policy and if so how should good content be reintroduced when a user insists on removing all edits without explanation. SayHiWorld (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to mention that this is a probable sockpuppet who has decided to return (hasn't edit since March 26) after the accounts Tomprox and BahahahaaO.o were blocked. Truthsort (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they had their chance. I decided to give WP:AGF a chance, but they took option B instead.... One policy note, sockpuppet/master edits are not revertable on sight unless the user has been banned (different from a blocked). So maybe we should go through the edits carefully and not just throw things out because the user was behaving badly. I left the rfc tag in place because there's no policy saying whether or not it can be removed and getting more input on the article wouldn't hurt. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• First two edits looked OK to me. "Flip flopped" is not exactly BLP --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Contributions by User:SayHiWorld (blocked sock account)(indefinite) have been reverted. I think this RfC can now lapse. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I guess there wasn't really anything groundbreakingly useful in the edits amongst the blatant blp vios. I've gone ahead an tlf'ed the RFC since I was the only one supporting keeping it open. Sailsbystars (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Robert Hurt (politician). 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/20100523055659/http://blogs.cqpolitics.com:80/eyeon2010/2010/05/virginia-gop-poll-portrays-hur.html to http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/eyeon2010/2010/05/virginia-gop-poll-portrays-hur.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100810213626/http://blogs.cqpolitics.com:80/eyeon2010/2010/06/nrcc-young-gun.html to http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/eyeon2010/2010/06/nrcc-young-gun.html

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Robert Hurt (politician). 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/20110225010518/http://www2.wsls.com:80/news/2011/feb/22/congressman-robert-hurt-senate-needs-stop-governme-ar-860274/ to http://www2.wsls.com/news/2011/feb/22/congressman-robert-hurt-senate-needs-stop-governme-ar-860274/

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Walter Lawrence Gaughan

In the section about the 2014 election Walter Lawrence Gaughan should be linked to the page titled Walter Lawrence Gaughan 24.113.88.48 (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)