Talk:Rick Hill/Archive 1

Another tiny edit request
This diff from the draft, basically. Reference number 3 is actually from the AP via the local newspaper, and should be cited as such.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 21:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection and WP:COI editing
I made a number of edits per the discussion on WP:BLPN that C Denowh started. Those changes were discussed there and consensus reached.

I have also protected this page due to persistent edit warring and prolonged attempts at ownership of this article by obvious WP:COI / WP:SPA editor(s). The article needs significant improvement and many citations. Please use the template here after discussing improvements and reaching consensus. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've gone in and added some info and citations from the Congressional bio after protection to address WP:V and to flesh out Hill's background per the Congbio. I'm pretty sure these changes are neutral and non-controversial. However, if anyone objects to those edits, I will be glad to revert. Toddst1 (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I took out some very partisan based material that was linked directly to a partisan blog. To me,this is a biographical site-not a place for either side of the political spectrum to post their opinions and/or rhetoric about their respective opponents-that's what blogs are for. [(User: FeBessemer|FeBessemer)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Febessemer (talk • contribs) 05:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

THe New York Times and the Helena Independent Record are not blogs, but legitimate print journalism. Thank you. Contantina13

Protection extended
It appears that the COI editors are still at this page and waging edit wars. I've extended full protection through 2011 and will be happy to extend protection through the election if this nonsense continues. Use to make changes to the page as appropriate, with consensus. Toddst1 (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Just curious, but isn't there a way to restrict the editors rather than the article? Seems like a very long time to fully protect an article based on editor conduct. Is it perhaps because you feel that other registered editors will come out of the woodwork so it would be a constant battle (just speculating)?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We've had a number of COI registered users attacking this article- not just one or ip-hoppers. Thanks to folks like yourself, it's been kept relatively in check.  However, after a couple of days after registering, these users will pass the semi-protected threshold and be ready to continue pushing their campaign agenda (yes, the first editor was connected to the campaign).   I think  should allow any agreed-upon edit to get in there. Toddst1 (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

News coverage of the article activity
FYI: coverage from the Billings Gazette here. Steven Walling 20:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * An interesting read on the situation, though whenever I read news articles on Wikipedia I twitch a little bit. Mainly it's because of a misconception by the media that Wikipedia is some corporate, bureaucratic entity rather than a loosely-organized collective of anonymous, unrelated volunteers. But that's a topic for another page, and another time.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm so used to citing newspapers in support of assertions, it's just a tad weird to read a newspaper's take on the editing process at Wikipedia in the context of a specific article - some sort of role reversal or a hall of mirrors.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and according to the paper, I am Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice! Don't let that get to your head too much.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Elektrik Shoos, 29 June 2011
In the edit war which led to the protection currently on the page, this citation was removed from the article (the second removal, as the first one has been resolved.) Since an affair did break up Mr. Hill's first marriage, and it appears to have been reported on locally at some length, it feels like scrubbing to remove it from the article. I'm requesting that the citation be restored.  elektrik SHOOS  17:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: Rick Hill went to High School in Atkin, Minnesota--NOT Atkin, Montana. This is an error on the Wikipedia page. There is no Atkin Montana, and Rick Hill did not even move to Montana until some years after completing High School (and college). Please see newer newspaper biographical articles that have corrected the earlier errors from the national press. For example: http://missoulian.com/news/local/rick-hill-has-been-campaigning-to-be-montana-s-governor/article_db70d532-0abd-11e2-abec-0019bb2963f4.html EcoRover (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

removed refimprove BLP
I have removed the tag from the article as that issue seems to have been addressed rather well. I realize that the article is fully protected, but as the orignal tagger I feel it isn't a problem to remove it. If anyone objects to its removal, please say so and I'll revert my edit. Toddst1 (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mark8342, 1 July 2011
''This was originally inside the above edit request section, but I moved it to help ease confusion between the two.  elektrik SHOOS  19:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)''

The way this sections is currently written, it appears if you read this article that the affair could have been had by Hill's ex-wife rather than Hill. I suggest adding "after Hill had an affair" rather than "after an affair" to make it clear that the woman, who has gone public in the past, was not the one to have had the affair." This misunderstanding is enhanced by the additional remark about custody. — Mark8342 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC).
 * ✅}

Edit request from Bbb23 - July 3, 2011
Even after being reworded, the article currently says: "Rick divorced his first wife in 1976 after he had an affair and retained custody of his three boys." Based on the source, this is not accurate. Four years later (still no divorce), his wife filed for divorce. I suggest the sentence be replaced by: ""After having an affair earlier that year, on May 18, 1976, Hill filed for divorce from his first wife, Mary Hill (nee Spaulding). In 1980, after the couple failed to reconcile, Spaulding filed for divorce. Ultimately, Hill obtained custody of the three children." I would add the following sources for the assertion: #1 and #2.

Two asides: I can't figure out when the divorce was final, and there is no cite for the second sentence in that section, although I believe it's true.

Regardless of whether you accept this request, the current sentence should not say Rick, but Hill.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite of "U.S. Representative" section
The "US Representative" section isn't a model of clarity. Here's a proposed rewrite, adding information and a cite:


 * Hill was elected to Congress in November 1996, representing Montana's At-large congressional district. He defeated Democrat Bill Yellowtail, who had been a Regional Administrator for the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Hill was re-elected in November 1998.


 * In May 1999, Hill criticized the "life style" choices of Nancy Keenan, a Democrat serving her third term as State School Superintendent, who had just announced she would run against him in 2000. He noted that she had never married and had no children, whereas he was a "family man". Keenan called Hill's remarks "ridiculous" and said she had always wanted children but had had a hysterectomy for health reasons.


 * Hill later decided not to run for re-election, citing vision problems related to a botched eye surgery. The November 2000 election was won by Republican nominee Denny Rehberg, who defeated Keenan.

Here's the current text (without cites):


 * Hill was elected to Congress in 1996, defeating Bill Yellowtail, and represented Montana's At-large congressional district from January 3, 1997, until January 3, 2001. In Hill's third campaign, he criticized his opponent, Nancy Keenan, because she had never been married and had no children, whereas Hill was a "family man". Keenan called Hill's remarks "ridiculous" and said she had always wanted children but had had a hysterectomy for "health reasons".


 * Hill did not run for re-election, citing eyesight problems.

Here's the wikitext (so the references are visible) of the proposed text:


 * Hill was elected to Congress in November 1996, representing Montana's At-large congressional district. He defeated Democrat Bill Yellowtail, who had been a Regional Administrator for the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Hill was re-elected in November 1998.


 * In May 1999, Hill criticized the "life style" choices of Nancy Keenan, a Democrat serving her third term as State School Superintendent, who had just announced she would run against him in 2000. He noted that she had never married and had no children, whereas he was a "family man". Keenan called Hill's remarks "ridiculous" and said she had always wanted children but had had a hysterectomy for health reasons.


 * Hill later decided not to run for re-election, citing vision problems related to a botched eye surgery. The November 2000 election was won by Republican nominee Denny Rehberg, who defeated Keenan.

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ I don't see any clarity problem, and most of the suggested changes consist of adding further information about Hills' predecessor, successor, and opponent, which is of only indirect relevance to an article about Hill. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, WP:FULL doesn't say that fully protected articles should be changed if an administrator considers the change to be valuable enough; it says that Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. The suggested change was posted for four days with no one objecting. Yes, it's primarily about adding context to the article, but that's not trivial: for example, rather than "eyesight problems", I proposed "vision problems related to a botched eye surgery", which tells the reader a lot more. I believe that and other proposed changes would add value, and certainly nothing I'm suggesting violates WP:UNDUE. And I note that I been not been involved in editing this article before, nor do I have a WP:COI issue. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 19:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I made some edits above to your post to show the changes between the current text and your proposed text. It's hard for me (and probably others) to comment without seeing them both, and I get tired of flip-flipping back and forth. If you object to my changing your post, that's fine, you can feel free to undo this entire edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I like part of the rewrite. I don't see a problem with the additional information that James mentions. Although I'm generally a very strict relevancy editor, I think it adds context about the series of elections and the people involved - I certainly don't think it's undue or particularly remote. However, I would make a change to the last sentence, replacing it with: "Hill later decided not to run in the 2000 election, citing vision problems that were subsequently corrected. The election was won by Republican nominee Denny Rehberg, who defeated Keenan." I think that's clearer, and I don't like the "botched" phrase, even though it's a quote from one of the sources. Also, I think it's important to report that his vision problems have been corrected - otherwise, it sounds like he still has them. Finally, I would remove the source that talks about Wikipedia problems. You only need it for the word "botched", which I've removed. It's also an odd article to cite to for this kind of an assertion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please update the request with the specific text you are requesting, reactivate editprotected, and I'll deploy. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the requested text:

Hill was elected to Congress in November 1996, representing Montana's At-large congressional district. He defeated Democrat Bill Yellowtail, who had been a Regional Administrator for the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Hill was re-elected in November 1998.

In May 1999, Hill criticized the "life style" choices of Nancy Keenan, a Democrat serving her third term as State School Superintendent, who had just announced she would run against him in 2000. He noted that she had never married and had no children, whereas he was a "family man". Keenan called Hill's remarks "ridiculous" and said she had always wanted children but had had a hysterectomy for health reasons.

Hill later decided not to run in the 2000 election, citing vision problems that were subsequently corrected. The election was won by Republican nominee Denny Rehberg, who defeated Keenan.

--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've updated as requested. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

external link
Please update the CongLinks template in External links exactly as follows 75.59.228.183 (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)




 * Are some of these links (particularly the non-governmental ones) considered reliable sources? They appear to be home-grown and claim to be non-partisan, but ... And what about his own website (which is there now)? And, uh, why does it have to be "exactly" as listed (from an IP whose only edit is this one)?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP's requesting an expansion of the CongLinks template already used in the article, which lists sites already established to be reliable. I have no objections.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit requests moved
I've moved the history of edit requests to Talk:Rick Hill/editrequests for readability. The article is now unprotected. We'll see how it goes. Toddst1 (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Nancy Keenan material
This is the text I've removed:

"In May 1999, Hill criticized the 'life style' choices of Nancy Keenan, a Democrat serving her third term as State School Superintendent, who had just announced she would run against him in 2000. He noted that she had never married and had no children, whereas he was a 'family man'. Keenan called Hill's remarks 'ridiculous' and said she had always wanted children but had had a hysterectomy for health reasons."

For the sake of argument, I'll accept the source as reliable, but I don't see that Hill's criticism is sufficiently noteworthy to include in the article. It's stupid stuff that, over the longterm, has little importance to his career. Now, if there were some press about it subsequently, particularly now, that would make it more worthy of inclusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

2001 through 2010?
I can't seem to find any information about what Hill did between January 2001 (when he left Congress) and 2011, when he declared for Governor. (And yes, I checked his campaign website.) Was he unemployed for ten years? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For example, in http://helenair.com/news/state-and-regional/federal-judge-agrees-to-independent-examiner-in-securities-fraud-case/article_379c0d63-c028-5831-9352-a4e96d94abfc.html, a March 2009 article, he is "former Montana Congressman Rick Hill, an affected investor". I did find that in 2004, he was head of a political action committee called "Advance Montana" (per the Google summary of this article: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/greatfallstribune/access/1796267481.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Oct+27%2C+2004&author=Peter+Johnson&pub=Great+Falls+Tribune&desc=MONTANA+SUPREME+COURT+ELECTION&pqatl=google ); in a blog from that period, he's said to be the Treasurer of the PAC. But that doesn't seem like a full-time job, and in any case there is nothing beyond 2004 to indicate he stayed on. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

SPA / Politically motivated / BLP issues continue, full protection
Given that the politically-motivated, WP:SPA editing has resumed, I have fully protected this BLP until after the election. This activity has already garnered media attention as discussed above. Discuss any proposed edits here, reach consensus and use the template. Toddst1 (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To help propose edits (especially regarding the references, which would be a bit of a mess to propose cleaning up properly), I've created a draft version of this article at Talk:Rick Hill/Draft. Editors can work on proposed changes there, then submit them for consideration here using the above template.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice. Toddst1 (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
Please copy over the references cleanup work I did found at Talk:Rick Hill/Draft. Other than a citation needed tag I threw in, there's no major content changing that I wouldn't mark as a minor edit otherwise. Thanks!  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You can also remove the linkrot tag once you do that, since this also solves the issue addressed by that template.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How about you update the draft so that I won't screw it up (again). Toddst1 (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can do that. Give me a sec.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Sorry about that.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tra (Talk) 22:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)