Talk:Pete Hoekstra

WMDs NY Times

On November 3, 2006, The New York Times reported that a website created at the request of Hoekstra and senator Pat Roberts was found to contain detailed information which could help nuclear states produce nuclear weapons. The website was shut down on November 2 following questioning by the Times and protests by International Atomic Energy Agency officials. Jamal Ware, a spokesman for Hoekstra, said complaints about the site "didn’t sound like a big deal .... We were a little surprised when they pulled the plug" ([7]).

This section appears not to make sense. It says, 'On Nov 3rd the NY times Reported that a website was up' then it says, 'The Website was shut down Nov 2nd.'

Please Correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.119.157 (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Peter Hoekstra (footballer)

It seems this guy would be more known as "Pete Hoekstra" whereas the footballer is definitely "Peter", therefore should Peter Hoekstra really link to this guy? 86.163.117.242 (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible Twitter account?

I can't confirm but believe this is his twitter account: http://twitter.com/petehoekstra . Needs to be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.2.159 (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Superbowl ad controversy

I understand that it doesn't necessarily need a subsection of its own, but if all you are going to do is edit it into a garbled sentence which is nonsensical and confusing, then just leave it alone for god's sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.157.240.154 (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to claim I'm the world's greatest expert on wiki coding, but the "Super Bowl" section of the article is chock full of mangled POV references....added notes that have to with 30 year old issues not related to the controversy itself and notes like "Hoekstra voted for trillions in deficit spending"....meaning, he voted in favor of passing a budget. These things are not directly related to what happened. Basically, the controversy adds up to this: A bunch of people who don't like Hoekstra anyway, either were offended, or pretended to be offended by something he showed on TV. Other than that, there isn't much to it.64.222.94.115 (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

So, you think the whole section should go? Gobonobo ^{T C} 07:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, not at all. I think that an ad came out that people apparently feel strongly about, and THAT is the controversy. If the ad brings back 1980's car smashing, that's relevant. If an Asian man got attacked in 1982, it isn't. The ad talks about the opponent's spending record, but the CONTROVERSY is about the chinese character, not the spending, so no matter who talks about Hoekstra's spending record or voting record is not relevant to the issue at hand...leave that to a section on the voting itself. What the controversy section turns into, rather than describing the ad or its reaction, is ...."Not only is Hoekstra RACIST, BUT...!!!!", which is not that point.

Rather than get into an edit war with those who keep undoing my changes here, I am hoping to engage a discussion of why they believe why it is relevant to the section on the Super Bowl controversy. I keep removing three items, basically: 1.) references to an article which makes the claim that the Super Bowl ad might restart racial attacks against Asians in Michigan; the article says "some say"...this is not a "citation of a credible source.", it's weasaling. 2.) a reference to a specific attack against a Chinese man, Vincent Chin, in Michigan in 1982. This has not a thing to do with "the Super Bowl Controversy". 3.) Hoekstra's voting for the "stimulus bill" and other budget bills. The controversy is over the content of the ad, and a perception of implied racist overtones, not anyone's voting record; it is fair to disagree with Hoekstra's voting record, or to call the ad hypocritical for that reason, but that is not the focus of this section. Please note I restored that information to the section regarding the 2012 Senate Race...that's where Hoekstra's voting record is relevant. It is both fair and relevant to make note of the controversy itself, and quote Hoekstra opponents, but it is not acceptable to turn the section into the "Pete Hoekstra bashing arena". Please explain why you disagree before reverting the section. 66.87.4.172 (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. I will leave this out, for now.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Split

I think that the Pete Hoekstra 2012 Superbowl advertisement in Michigan should have its own wikipedia page. The advertisement has been reviewed by Countdown with Keith Olberman, The Young Turks and other media outlets.--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Don't think it meets notability criteria for separate article. There's been a spate of coverage since it actually aired (less than a week ago), but it seems likely that it will be reduced to a footnote in the overall campaign. If it becomes a central, defining issue in the campaign, (e.g., Macaca_(term)), there will be time enough to revisit and split into its own article. SS451 (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

'"Oppose"'I don't think the topic itself warrants a separate page.It is a news topic which will have a large immediate footprint, but will probably fade into the fabric of who Pete Hoekstra is. Such information belongs on the main page about Pete Hoekstra. Similarly, I don't think the Zedane headbutt warrants its own page or the Suh arm-stomp warrants a split from the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.233.52 (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well, now that a few months have passed, I would say that it certainly shouldn't be such a large part of this article, especially when it's well-covered in the Senate race article.

I removed "Super Bowl" from the section heading. Even though the ad was aired during the Super Bowl, using the name implies an undeserved negative connotation that the Super Bowl was involved with the content of the ad. --98.203.241.55 (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the word "racist" from the section header. While I feel it was, the use of the term is POV. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)