Talk:Jeff Merkley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
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.
Oregon Portal
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon.
To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week.
Start This page is rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article is rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jeff Merkley article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Proposed link additions

My name is Matt Savage and I am an intern with the Jeff Merkley for Oregon Campaign. We would like to add this article for consideration to add to Jeff Merkley's Wikipedia page.

Thank you

  • "Great Expectation". Street Roots on December 1, 2007.

hhttp://streetroots.blogspot.com/2007/12/merkleynovick-interview-in-street-roots.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattsav (talk • contribs) 00:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed addition concerning Jeff Merkley's support of Oregon House Joint Memorial 9

While Speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives, Jeff Merkley cosponsored and supported House Joint Memorial 9, a resolution calling on President Bush and the U.S. Congress to rescind plans for increasing U.S. troop deployments in Iraq and proceed to troop withdrawal by the first quarter of 2008. HJM 9 passed the Oregon House under Jeff's leadership on March 20, 2007 by a vote of 33 to 25.

Citing the growing negative effects of loss of life, mental and physical injuries to our troops, and the financial and physical vulnerabilities of communities due to the commitment of troops and resources to Iraq, Merkley and his fellow Oregon law makers called on Congress "to oppose this announced increase in the number of troops deployed in Iraq, and to pass legislation that limits the President from spending more taxpayer dollars on such an escalation." The resolution said Congress and the President should immediately "announce an expedient plan for the redeployment of the Armed Forces of the United States from Iraq...as soon as possible, but not later than the first quarter of fiscal year 2008."

A full copy of the text of House Joint Memorial 9 can be found at:

http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/hjm1.dir/hjm0009.a.html


News coverage of House Joint Memorial 9:


http://www.pdxpeace.org/news/2007/mar/20/ap-oregon-house-backs-troop-withdrawal-resolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aswegner (talk • contribs) 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Are you going to add it? Or would like someone to do it for you? —EncMstr 20:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
EncMstr, likely a campaign volunteer. I think the Merkley campaign is going to great lengths to comply with WP:COI, so one of us not associated with the campaign should add it. My sense is that it should probably be trimmed a bit so as not to dominate the relatively short article, and also, the article should mention the March 2003 resolution on the war. I'll dig up a little coverage of that. -Pete (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, I somehow missed that the HR2 was already covered. Anyway, I think this issue is moot now, thanks to Esprqii's excellent work. -Pete (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicts of Interest

If you work for the campaign of this candidate or an opponent, as a reminder please read WP:COI before you edit this article. Wikipedia has a variety of guidelines and rules that will thwart attempts to spin issues or use this as a soapbox. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for help from unbiased editors

This request was posted on my talk page; I'm sure other editors will help to move items from the discussion page to the article as needed. --Esprqii (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help in trying to keep the page on an even keel. I realize I am not as objective as others. Though I try to limit bias, it can still creep in. Since it seems like you are so proactive in Oregon Wikis, it would be great if you or someone un-affiliated could post stuff from the discussion page as appropriate. That way it won't languish there for awhile, and someone with a strong bias won't post.
As far as the "(intentionally) omitted clause", that section relating to supporting the removal of Saddam was added by someone else. Except for some formatting and removal of a duplicated section of Jeff Merkley's speech, I did not change anything that was posted by someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KalHazer (talk • contribs) 20:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HR2, 2003

My name is Stephanie Vardavas. I am a supporter but not a staff member of Steve Novick for US Senate, Jeff Merkley's primary opponent. I am also the original author of Steve Novick's own wikipedia article (although it now exists in a form different and expanded from my original work).

I am familiar with the controversy that recently arose when a Novick staff member edited Jeff Merkley's page. However, having read through the controversial edit as well as the current version of the page, I consider the current version to be more misleading than the controversial edit.

The current version omits the highly inflammatory preambles of HR2, which for so many of us are very significant in our point of view about Merkley's vote and illustrative of the true meaning of the bill as intended by its drafters. The current version includes an unlabeled link to the full text of the resolution but no hint as to any reason why a reader would care to click on the link.

In my view, this treatment of HR2 is misleadingly incomplete.

My first preference would be for the entire text of HR2 (including preambles) to be included without additional commentary beyond that which is already present. It is not a very lengthy resolution in its entirety and reproducing the whole thing will provide a fuller picture of the significance of Merkley's vote.

If that is not possible under wikipedia guidelines, then I would propose the addition of some commentary specifically advising the reader that the full text of the preamble, written and proposed by the Republican leadership and considered very inflammatory by some Democrats, can be found at <link>.

I will also note that the phrase "included strong doubts about the war" in the following paragraph is not necessarily accurate. The quoted words speak for themselves. The reader should be allowed to judge for himself or herself what the words mean.

I will watch this page for future developments.

Thank you.

Vardavas (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I agree that the introduction to Merkley's comments presented POV issues so I have removed that. Also, to provide equal weight, I edited Merkley's comment as the full text was overlong.
As for providing the full text of the resolution, while I recognize that this issue is extremely important to many readers, it gives undue weight to this article to put the full text of either the resolution or Merkley's justification in this article. I added a labeled link to the full text; I still think the reference link is sufficient, but I can see that it may not be clear what it points to. Note that other editors may view this as superfluous and remove it. --Esprqii (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Stephanie, how do Esprqii's edits sit with you? —EncMstr 19:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for your thoughtful responses. This revision does represent a step in the right direction, I would say.
I still believe that the words of Merkley's floor speech (or the excerpt therefrom) should be allowed to speak for themselves without caption, introduction, or interpretation.
I also think that the reference to HR2 has been meaningfully improved by disclosing that the full text of the bill is available at the link, but I continue to believe that the full text of the bill is not so lengthy that it could not be reproduced in the article. (That was a double negative but I think you get my meaning.) The preambles are vital to a reader's understanding of why HR2 is controversial.
I have some questions about some of the other content in this article as well, but I will raise those separately, each subject on its own, to keep the discussion manageable.
I'll check back here for further updates.
Thank you again.
Vardavas (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think Merkley's explanation needs some introduction for context, so I added a citation to Merkley's explanation of his vote, and left the intro to his House comments without comment. I'm concerned that you seem to be attempting to score a political point along the lines of "he voted for the war before he voted against it;" I don't think the facts bear that out, and his House floor comment seems plain to me. Readers can judge from what is provided whether he was trying to have it both ways. Other editors are welcome to weigh in. Further, I do not believe adding the preamble, or Merkley's full quote, illuminate this topic any more.
Since you stated you have other questions, I suggest you list them all here so that other editors can consider your suggestions at once rather than dragging this out. Thanks. --Esprqii (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The policy on "no original research" -- one of the core policies of Wikipedia -- actually deals with matters related to this in some detail, here: Wikipedia:No original research#Primary.2C secondary.2C and tertiary sources. Using primary sources, whether selectively or exhaustively, involves some editorial judgment that goes beyond our role as an encyclopedia. Secondary sources are our best guide, and should receive the most attention in a case like this. I believe there was more coverage of the issue than the Seattle Times article quoted; it would be good to find some of that. I also agree with Esprqii's suggestion above -- better to resolve things ASAP while several editors are paying attention, cause we have lots of other articles to worry about! -Pete (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Israel Controversy

Jeff Merkley made public statements supporting Israel on a public forum. His staff handed out to the attendees his position paper. Voters deserve to see what his positions on critical issues actually are, even if you disagree with them or they are unpalatable. Millerphm (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If the position paper was covered in a reliable source, then we can use that as a basis for including it here. Otherwise, there's no basis for determining that this is a noteworthy aspect of Jeff Merkley's biography.
It's worth noting that Wikipedia's concern is with creating a biography of the person's life, as opposed to a tool for voters to evaluate one specific candidacy in his career. Voters may "deserve to know" something, but it is not up to Wikipedia to meet that need. It may be better to lobby a news outlet than an encyclopedia on this specific point. -Pete (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So, even if it was from a "reliable source" revealing a candidates position is still not allowed on the web site about the candidate? That seems very strange. Millerphm (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not "the website about the candidate". It's not even a website about the candidate. It's an encyclopedia article about the candidate. I'd strongly encourage you to read more at What Wikipedia is Not. Katr67 (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not saying that any specific position should or shouldn't be included in this article, just pointing out that the focus of this article is the person's entire life/career, not this specific race. If you know of a source that discusses this position paper, let's have a look; if not, I think speculation about hypotheticals gets us off track. -Pete (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I personally thought the section was added with reasonable neutrality, though it may have given undue weight to the issue. The removal of the section may have been a bit hasty in my opinion. Note that Merkley's position is now being explored among reliable sources; see http://wweek.com/wwire/?p=11602. (sigh, the Wikipedia entry is mentioned in that article...) My recommendation would be to let the issue gel a bit in the media before we start getting into it here. --Esprqii (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Story made the O this morning: http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1208922907110710.xml&coll=7 --Esprqii (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)