Talk:William J. Hughes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	William J. Hughes is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category."
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low."
???	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event."

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

	NJ Portal William J. Hughes is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

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)