Talk:Bob Huff

message: The whole article feels more like an advertisement for "Bob" needs some major cleanup.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.182.160 (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'm adding a POV template.--75.83.76.23 (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Although we appear to have a consensus that there is a POV problem, user Billbird2111 deleted the POV tag (as well as two other tags) without consultation and without participating in discussion on the talk page. I've put the tags back. Billbird2111, please don't revert without participating in discussion. The article has glaringly obvious POV problems. It simply reads like campaign literature.--75.83.65.81 (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

text: By googling I found out that Bill Bird is Bob Huff's communications director. He has an account on LinkedIn with the same username, billbird2111.--75.83.65.81 (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  More of an Advertisement Than an Article 

message: Some of the material in the article appears to have been cut and pasted from his campaign literature. For example, his web site has:
:Born in Calexico, California, Bob Huff grew up on his family's farm in the Imperial Valley. Most of his professional and business experience has been in the agricultural industry. Working through the ranks to become the youngest vice president in a grain handling corporation, he became manager-owner of the Ray S. French Company, an independent commodity wholesaler, shortly after he moved his family to Diamond Bar in 1983. Senator Huff and his wife, Mei Mei, have three sons, a daughter and five grandchildren.
The article has:
:Born in Calexico, California, Huff grew up on his family's farm in the Imperial Valley. Huff attended Westmont College in Santa Barbara, where in 1975 he earned a bachelor's degree in psychology, graduating with honors. Most of his professional and business experience has been in the agricultural industry. Working through the ranks to become the youngest vice president in a grain handling corporation, he became manager-owner of the Ray S. French Company, an independent commodity wholesaler, shortly after he moved his family to Diamond Bar in 1983. Bob Huff and his wife Mei Mei live in Diamond Bar. Combined, they have three sons, a daughter, and five grandchildren.
--75.83.65.81 (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: @Billbird2111 "I have worked with numerous Wikipedia editors who have informed me that I may not place ANYTHING on his Wikipedia page that isn't on the Senator's website." - please link to where you were told this. --NeilN talk to me 22:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Material cut and pasted from Huff's web site

message: Please note that Billbird2111 is working for the subject as his Communications Director.  Mr. Bird, you should refrain from editing the article directly and instead make suggestions for changes here. --NeilN talk to me 05:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI editing 

message: I will adhere to Neil's request unless I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. This is really aggravating, and Neil, I posted my most aggravating concerns on your talk page. There's a reason why I'm making so many changes, people. It's because someone with a clear agenda against Senator Huff completely erased everything on his Wikipedia page over the weekend and inserted left-wing BS. I thought this was an encyclopedia page, no? Since when do you allow encyclopedias to attack Republicans or Democrats for that matter? This is exactly what took place. OK -- first suggested edit. This really bugs me. Under the Legislation heading, second paragraph, someone has placed a tag for clarification. I provided that clarification in two followup sentences, where it was explained why he (Senator Huff) introduced the legislation. Those lines have since been DELETED. Why? It provides the clarification that the editor is asking for. I am REQUESTING that these clarification lines be re-inserted, and the tag for clarification be removed: "Heritage Schools were previously not defined in state code as educational entities. Lacking this designation, the California Department of Social Services (DSS) would sometimes designate these schools as childcare centers, forcing them to close."  Billbird2111 (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can provide me with a third-party citation (i.e., not from Senator Huff) that Heritage Schools were previously not defined in state code as educational entities and that the DSS would sometimes designate these schools as child care centers which forced them to close, I will add that to the article for you and include the references.  Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification Needed

message: I want to know the exact reasons why the headings on Senator Huff's Wikipedia entry have been modified. I do not agree with them. This appears to be agenda driven only. Unless I am given a suitable explanation, I will change them back and take this dispute to the Dispute Resolution page. Billbird2111 (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think the current headings are "agenda driven" rather than neutrally-worded then you severely lack perspective. Changing them back will result in a revert. --NeilN talk to me 21:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

text: As you have edited only a single article here on Wikipedia, you probably lack some perspective as to what constitutes a neutral point of view. I suggest you take a few deep breaths, count to 10, and take a few steps backward. Terms such as "Legislative leadership" and "Rankings, awards and recognition" are not neutral; they're promotional. The headers as they currently exist (Education and professional life, Political career, Recognition, etc.) are pretty much standard headers for biographies. If you want to check out some similar biographies, here are a few to look at for comparison: Sam Aanestad, Dick Ackerman, Joel Anderson, , . Happy reading! 71.139.157.191 (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Headings

message: I'm in the process of undoing edits by Huff's communications director, then reinserting the references and other positive contributions made in the interim by NeilN, Dru of Id, Elaqueate, and others. Got a message from NeilN protesting my revert -- NeilN, please discuss here. I'm attempting to get rid of the astroturfing without losing the positive contributions.--75.83.65.81 (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please work on the current version.  A number of editors have looked over the article in its present state and I'm assuming found it not too glowing. What current sections need work? --NeilN talk to me 03:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What's there now is my attempt to make a merge of the work of everyone who's worked on it recently, with the exception of Huff's communications director, who had reinserted a vast amount of blatantly self-promotional material. What do you think of this version? What basically happened was that the article was a cut-and-paste job by Huff's communications director, then I did a major rewrite, then Huff's communications director reverted what I'd done, and then other people started doing edits on top of his material. I don't think it's appropriate to use Huff's communications director's text as the basis of the article.--75.83.65.81 (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add some the Recognition paragraph back in, mainly the awards from blue-linked organizations. Also, is there a source for "The top industries donating to his campaign were real estate ($91,000) and insurance ($45,000). Despite his low ratings from organized labor, he received $30,000 from public sector unions."? --NeilN talk to me 04:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you think about this one?  I can't find a source for it that doesn't seem to originate from the Bob Huff press releases. The source we have is an event announcement. I don't know if the original was "Most Influential in California, in Real Estate, in Sacramento, Most Influential Rotarian, or whether it was out of 25, 100, or 1000 people. If it's from the year 2000, it's apparently when he was a mayor. I'm sure it references something, but right now it looks a bit fluffy and unverifiable. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot find any independent sources either. It should probably go, based on the lack of independent references and clarity. --NeilN talk to me 20:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Undoing edits by Huff's communications director

message: There's a bit of a problem with the paragraph describing Huff's relations with the Supermajority Democrats. The quote says he's pragmatic, but in context that's directly about getting legislation through, not about his views. The quote supports a different assertion than that he's seen as "moderate" which is not in the source we cite. He is arguably moderate on some issues, such as Prop 8 issues, but we don't have anyone saying he is. I think we should either find more cited support for the moderate sentence on its own, or re-write to explain better, or ditch it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 11:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moderate vs Pragmatic support 

message: The changes made to the Wikipedia entry for Bob Huff are both libelous and attacking. This will go to the dispute resolution area. This agenda-driven attack has nothing to do with a supposed "neutral point of view," since it contains references and rankings from organizations that are diametrically opposed to Republican policy. Billbird2111 (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is still listed at the WP:BLPN.  More information on the dispute resolution process can be found at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Another link to review is WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Bahooka (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

text: What on Earth are you talking about, Bill? The article also contains references and rankings from organizations that are supportive of Republican policy. That's how we work: we impartially report what is said by all sides, and let the readers evaluate the subject in the light of what his supporters and critics stand for. The word "libel" has a specific meaning in law: don't mix it up with "something unfavorable I don't like, even though it's properly attributed"; we have a zero-tolerance policy on legal threats around here. You are Huff's "communications director", a/k/a flack, spindoctor, press agent, PR man, what-have-you; as you have been repeatedly told, your blatant conflict of interest makes you a very poor editor on this subject, and leaves even legitimate edits suspect in the extreme, since it is in your best interest to make your boss look good. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

text: "...it contains references and rankings from organizations that are diametrically opposed to Republican policy." I´m sorry, now you have me wondering if you really are who you say are. Do you really not see that this is an incredibly problematic position to take when writing an encyclopedic article? Would you place any trust in our article about Hillary Clinton if that was how sources were chosen? If you want to keep contributing in this area, take some inspiration from how User:Joedesantis did his job, and take a look at the newsitems linked under "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations" at Talk:Newt Gingrich. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Annnnnd he is blocked. This is, like, SNL Weekend Update funny. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: This is libelous and attacking

message: This discussion was moved from User talk:Billbird2111:
Perhaps you would care to enlighten me? More than once, editors have insisted upon "sourced" material. I understand that you do not consider the Senator's website to be "sourced" material (though you do cite his campaign website, but not the Senate website, which I find odd). But I did source several paragraphs that were from websites or news organizations not connected to the Senator or his website. These items were still removed. I would like to know why. An example of this work is pasted below. --Billbird2111 (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like another editor (75.83.65.81) deleted that material in a massive revert of your promotional editing, and then didn't add all of the ratings back in again. I can't speak for the other editor, but it could have been an oversight. The California Chamber of Commerce and the California Farm Bureau Federation ratings are already in the article as it currently stands. I've added the California Taxpayers Association as being representative of its category (See categories here: ) and more recent than the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association rating. 71.139.153.24 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interest group ratings 

message: I removed strong and unsourced claims in the ratings (i.e. "strong supporter of education" , "against gun control", "pro-life", etc, - these are usually nuanced positions and none of them were sourced.  I replaced his "Life Priority Network Rating" with the "California Pro-Life Council".  Scores were the same but one group seems non-notable while the CPLC is the california affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee.  The Planned Parenthood score was incorrect and I updated it.  I added the Votesmart disclaimer at the bottom.  Some of the scoring is obviously more related to party than position.  I found cases for both.  in fact some only gave out 100 or 0 and it correlated to R or D. Others appeared to pander to both parties and gave high scores for being a politician.  This wasn't Votesmarts fault, but the the orgs that submit ratings.  --DHeyward (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Positions and affiliations