Talk:Tom Horne

Untitled

Horne succeeded Jaime Molera who was appointed by Gov. Hull when Keegan left for the Bush(43) Administration

Good catch. I updated Political party strength in Arizona to reflect this correction. Qqqqqq (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

POV problems

This article is a bit of a mess. It appears to have been subject to conflict of interest editing a number of times. As it stands, the tone is decidedly congratulatory, ignoring much controversy surrounding Horne, and definitely not WP:NPOV Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering if the following line "Horne's job as State Superintendent is widely seen as ironic, as he proved in December 2012 that he knows very little about education, proposing that teachers be armed with guns" requires citations as it definitely contradicts the tone of the rest of the article and appears to be something tacked on at the last moment as an emotive-inspiring sentence. Actually it appears to be something intended primarily to capitalize on recent events and does not add to the informative value of this section of the article. I wonder if it would not be more worthwhile to simply delete it but hesitate to as I remain unregistered. kstramin 2:12, 7 January 2012 MT

Article Updates

I agree that this article is congratulatory in tone. Words such as "championed" need to be replaced with more neutral language. At the very least, the court cases against Horne, including the current ones presented by the state and FBI about misuse of election funds, need to be included, as does today's news about Horne's involvement in an unreported hit-and-run while meeting with his mistress. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. Sjperelmen (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I've added a section on "Law Violations." I moved the content regarding Horne's ban from securities trading to this section, and added subsections regarding the campaign finance violations and traffic violations (one of which was a criminal citation.) Note that the traffic violations have been added and removed from this article several times. Because there has been significant coverage of these violations in the press, including the Arizona Republic (a newspaper of record) and TV stations, and because Horne is the top law enforcement officer in Arizona and a licensed attorney, and because Horne has shown a pattern of illegal behavior (violation of securities laws, campaign finance laws, etc.), I believe they are notable, and should stay in the article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have added a section on Horne's hiring of a woman with whom he is/was having an affair. This is notable (lots of press coverage), so it belongs in the article. However... I don't know the policy on mentioning names. I've not used the woman's name in the article, even though it's out there in a large number of news stories. What's the WP policy? Do we include a name or not? Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Great work, Fearofreprisal. I think you have struck a good balance and present a much richer profile of a complex public figure. I do not know WP policy, but I think you've made the wise decision in not including the mistress's name; it's easily found in the links in your excellent citations.Sjperelmen (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I note that Horne touts (I am assuming COI editing here) his Martindale-Hubbell AV attorney rating, shoehorned into his "early life" section. Ratings are only issued when requested by the attorneys in question and are used for promotional value. The "V" is for supposed ethics. Horne's rating dates back to 1982. It is only revisited at the rated attorney's request. I can't imagine that Horne would want any revision, as it could only be revised downward, likely substantially. So my question is, should it remain on his page, since it is so obviously antiquated? Activist (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent Changes Regarding Career as Attorney general

The section 'Attorney General' seems very peculiar and likely biased toward Mr. Horne. A single user 'Prtomhorne' appeared to have done a significant amount of editing, and reverted their own edits after user:Materialscientist reverted the sudden edits. Not wishing to prompt the same response I thought I should bring this up as an issue. 25th of August 2014 CE

Well, guess the PRtomhorne thing didn't work out so well.... Now maybe someone can fix up this article - or maybe delete it, since an ex state AG isn't very noteworthy. --Marjaliisa (talk) 06:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Noteworthiness, once established, remains. So, the article should stay, though it needs some clean up (and even my past edits need some clean up.) I'm going to remove the flag on the article, since Prtomhorne is no longer editing. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Allegations of Affair

Disagree with my comments taken out; there has never been substantiation of an affair; very difficult to prove a negative; but, no proof of affair. Should be at least able to say such? I have referenced 3700 pages of FBI information that does not substantiate.Mwinog2777 (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, what you can say is limited by what you can cite. If you can find a reliable source that says there's been no substantiation of an affair, then include it. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I just went back to read what you added to the article, and the citation you included. The citation does not support the claims in the article, and the claims appear to be original research. So, I have removed them. If you feel I'm mistaken, please point out for me where in the citation it says that there's never been any substantiation of the affair. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Eavesdropping Allegation

2 points I'd like to make: 1. There is no citation beyond hearsay. 2. It is alleged that he spoke about it; no evidence yet that he did recommend eavesdropping, and no evidence yet that the conversation happened; AND, if the conversation happened, what exactly did he say about eavesdropping? Did he say it was illegal and therefore shouldn't be done; I will take the allegation out unless we have evidence about exactly what he spoke about and what he told his underlings to do.

I wish for this to be discussed and hopefully we will have a consensus.Mwinog2777 (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

If the allegation is supported by a citation to a reliable source, then it probably makes sense to include it. If it needs to be rephrased for NPOV, then that probably ought to be done, rather than just removing it. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, I went back to reread that section of the article, and the citations. No matter what did or did not actually happen, the content of the article is properly cited to reliable sources. Also, I've removed your "citation needed" template, as the citation is at the end of the subsequent sentence. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• • • I disagree; we need a citation. Who made the allegation? Was it substantiated? Was it leaked to the press and then discredited by the local D.A? We need to know more than a t.v. reprtot, and to be very careful about defamatory material about living people.Mwinog2777 (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

We have already have citations to reliable sources for the relevant material. See references 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24. If you want more citations, they're really easy to find. Regarding who made the allegation, whether it was substantiated, and whether it was leaked to the press: it's all in the article. Regarding whether it was discredited by the local D.A.: Arizona doesn't have District Attorneys, so I don't know what you're talking about.

In any event: No... we do not need more than a TV report. Scripps media (ABC15) is a reliable source, for the purposes of this BLP article. And, even if it weren't, the findings in its report are buttressed by several other sources cited in the article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Court cases

I removed two references to cases Horne was involved with as AG: the mortgage settlement, and Ryan v. Gonzales.

I have no problem with these cases being included -- but the text and citations need to be made consistent. In the mortgage case, the citation was not about the settlement, but was about Horne defending the state raiding the settlement. In Ryan v. Gonzales, Horne didn't argue about the delay, but rather argued that a death-row inmate was not entitled to stay federal habeas proceedings he initiated if he is not competent to assist counsel. (It was about competence, not delay.) (And the citation didn't mention Horne.) Cinteotl (talk) 09:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• • Re' Supreme Court case: changed reference to where Horne was listed, and changed the text to be consistent with citation. Also revised the bank article.Mwinog2777 (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks good. Cinteotl (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Actions as AG

While many of @Mwinog2777's recent contributions are very good, I feel that some of them have related more to Horne's political statements than his actions as AG. For example:

• His statement regarding the anticipated verdict in the Michael Brown shooting had no substance. It was just publicity.
• His comments regarding ICE's policy of sending illegal immigrants from Texas to Arizona came down to "I don't like it, but I'm not allowed to sue." (And, indeed, he took no further action that I know of.) Given the timing of his remarks, they may have been campaign rhetoric.

I'd suggest that the section focus mostly on actions by Horne that actually lead to a result (e.g., a court decision, a change in the law, a policy decision), rather than just publicity. Cinteotl (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• • Noted. The two you mentioned were judgement calls on my part; given his role as A.G. in a very politically divisive state, his comments do carry some importance, particularly in those two volatile situations, both of which had extensive press coverage.Mwinog2777 (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Neither statement bothers me enough that I want to remove it. I think your judgement has been pretty good, so far. Cinteotl (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Horne didn't just make an empty gesture with Ferguson issue; with violence around the country, per AZcetntral.com: "Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne and civil-rights leaders gathered Monday afternoon to urge for peaceful demonstrations in anticipation of a decision." A meeting to cool tempers and ask for peace is not without substance. Others may feel that it does not meet Wiki criteria for inclusion; I will await a consensus on this issue. Per Wiki guidelines: "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first..." Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Colorado City Suit

• The original post about this was withdrawn. Note that Horne in a court document (http://ia800304.us.archive.org/13/items/gov.uscourts.azd.532849/gov.uscourts.azd.532849.294.0.pdf) was listed as "attorney for plaintiff"and "intervenor State of Arizona." I would propose changing the wording to state he was a plaintiff lawyer and an intervenor for the State, rather than the original statement. As early as 2010, then A.G. Goddard felt that this was an important enough case to deserve the intervention of the state. Horne continued Arizona's involvement to the final judgment. I believe this is a substantive issue, and should be included with the changed wording. I would ask readers of this talk page to comment further.Mwinog2777 (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Horne was listed as "attorney for plaintiff-intervenor" (which is to say, the State of Arizona), not for the plaintiffs Ronald and Jinjer Cooke. Important distinction there. If Goddard was the original intervenor for the State, then he's the one who should be credited with taking the action. (Horne would have just been continuing the state's involvement.) In any event, none of the articles I've seen have indicated the scope of Horne's involvement, other than his issuing statements about the case. Cinteotl (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I see it differently. The case was handled by the Civil Rights division, and important enough to be seen through a 4 years court case by 2 AZ A.G.'s Through 2011-2012, the A.G.'s office was involved in the case with various activities-(see: http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020130213G22). On 16 June, 2014, Horne as A.G. filed a motion to re-open the evidentiary record.(https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/Motion%20for%20Leave.pdf.) Check above references and you will see that the intervenor was quite active and not a passive bystander. Once again, the initial wording was not perfect, but the case should remain. And, instead of representing plaintiff in a civil case we can say that the case was a civil rights case and handled by the appropriate section in the office.Mwinog2777 (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

We can't say that Horne intervened in the case, because he didn't. Terry Goddard did. Horne inherited the case. Once the AG's office was involved, they couldn't very well drop out. The references you provide aren't appropriate to use in the article. My understanding is that legal filings are not generally acceptable. So, it'd need to be something like AZcentral. Cinteotl (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." DES ^(talk) 18:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The point of this kind of requirement is that these documents often include private matters like home addresses and things like traffic tickets that are profoundly irrelevant to an encyclopedia article, and court documents routinely include disputed things such as witness testimony that could be rejected. Using the court documents to say that so-and-so was a lawyer in the case is quite different, because it's not a disputable matter; it's no different from using a newspaper article to say that so-and-so is one of the newspaper's employees. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a second paragraph to WP:BLPPRIMARY and it states: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." There was a secondary source used in the discussion of the Colorado City lawsuit, reporting the AZ A.G.'s involvement in the case. When challenged, I listed in the Talk Page primary source material to show Horne had continued involvement in this case. I feel this meets Wiki criteria, by using this material only to augment the secondary material. I agree with Nyttend. My point was merely to state that Horne, as attorney general, represented the state in a continuing process, even if he didn't start it. I still think this is a viable entry, with the wording changed, to correct initial errors, as I stated above. Mwinog2777 (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

If no third party reliable sources have "given him credit as intervenor" then we certainly do not go digging into court filings to bring such assertions to the article. WP:OR / WP:UNDUE and WP:BLPPRIMARY. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Original research in Wikipedia is defined as:The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. I did not do original research; I simply looked at court documents to augment secondary material, and show that Horne continued as intervenor. I look for consensus on this issue.Mwinog2777 (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, Horne did continue as intervenor. His office did do meaningful work, and got a judgment that showed the defendants had engaged in religious discrimination. (And, in fact, his involvement with Colorado City went beyond just the Cooke litigation.) There are good third party reliable sources (newspapers, in particular) that cover this. I have no problem with Mwinog including this matter, so long as it reflects what's been generally covered in those sources. To the extent that he/she is using court documents to validate what's been published in other sources, that seems reasonable. Cinteotl (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

All of the analysis, commentary and implications must come directly from the sources themselves. "Augmentation" that goes beyond what is specifically detailed in the third party sources is not allowed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Augmentation is allowed by Wiki guidelines; but, "synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research" is not. I revised the Colorado City suit entry. I published what reliable sources covered. There appear no new conclusions.Mwinog2777 (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

There is acceptable use of primary sources to "augment" - by say adding the county and state in which a case was filed because the local third party coverage took that as a given. There is unacceptable "augmentation" to give someone credit for something that the third party sources do not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Mwinog is going to misuse primary sources. He/she seems to be a very competent editor, and always willing to discuss things on the talk page. So far, a pleasure to work with. Cinteotl (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Bilingual Education

I took out the following from the article describing the effect of Horne's actions on bilingual education: "...thereby denying the reality of multilingualism in Arizona schools and refusing to recognize any value to students being academically bilingual." The above is a POV statement not substantiated by the reference given. Did Horne really say that, and if so what is the reference to back that? I do not believe the above was a "good faith" edit.Mwinog2777 (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Spouse Info

The information listed about Horne’s spouse is incorrect. 2600:1011:B135:BFDD:6982:81C:4AE4:591C (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Marquardtika (talk)