Talk:Ben Westlund

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Conflict of Interest

Just to let those editing this article know, a person from Ben Westlund's campaign should not be editing this article. It is a conflict of interest. Wikipedia has had a problem with campaigns editing articles about their candidate to make them look better. It is therefore recommended that they not edit articles about their candidate to keep them as unbias as possible. Thanks... Davidpdx 13:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Choice Category

I think the pro choince category label should be left in until we can clarify the issue. Davidpdx 23:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

While I welcome a discussion of whethere the reference should be in there, it is a mistake to leave it up. The burden of adding claims to a wiki is on the poster. Present evidence that Westlund is pro-choice and we'll hash it out here. Until that affirmative decision is reached, though, it should not be posted. Hence, I'm removing it again.

As reasons not to include this information, he openly supports parental notification. In 2005, he voted for HB 2020 in the senate to expand homicide laws to cover fetuses by redefining "human being" to include an embryo or fetus at eny stage of development. In 2003, he voted for HB 2547, which would have created a waiting period for abortions and required doctors to read a statement to those seeking abortion.

None of those positions falls within the range of what is traditionally considered pro-choice. All are opposed by pro-choice groups such as the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. (unsigned by User:Babbage ct 02:15, 9, June 2006 (UTC))

You can still be pro-choice and support waiting periods and parental notification. This guy may not be super pro-choice, but compared to everyone else? Yeah. --Liface 17:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt Westlund has a nuanced position that does allow for some abortion. In a political context, however, he does not meet the 'pro-choice' moniker. (unsigned by 216.12.38.93 05:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

Pro-choice

There is no Commission of Choice who determines who is and who is not pro-choice. It is a self-defined state and Ben Westlund has always defined himself as pro-choice. He was also defined as pro-choice by the party he left. It's one of the reasons he was called a RINO. Yes, Ben supports a reasoned parental notification bill, but the only people who are going to define that as anti-choice are extremists and people who work for Ted Kulongoski.

Ben sponsored legislation last session to require insurers to cover contraceptions, and a bill to make emergency contraception available from a pharmacist. He also fought hard to preserve funding for abortions for low-income women. He believes abortion is a fundamental right and as Governor has said he would not sign any anti-choice legislation.

The pro-choice lobby must have liked something Westlund was doing becuase he received 100% from NARAL in 2005 and 100% from Planned Parenthood in 2003. Those groups don't give their enemies good grades. He's pro-choice.

Regarding who is is going to caucus with, why the independents of course. (unsigned by 66.39.164.186 10:28, 21, June 2006 (UTC))

I tend to agree with you, if he calls himself pro-choice then leave that label on. The voters will decide if he is telling the truth or not. A footnote though, I doubt you can say all pro-choice people would consider him anti-choice, certainly I'm in the minority, but open to seeing it both ways.

By the way, you should sign and date your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Three tildes (~~~) produces just your name. Davidpdx 02:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prochoice Category Readded (again)

I once again added the prochoice category to this article. It seems like we have one person protesting the adding of the category and two or three saying it should be keep. Therefore, since the candidate claims he's prochoice I think we should leave it in.

The only other option would be to do an RFC (request for comment) to allow others to comment on what they think. I'm open to doing that, whichever way it pans out. Everyone has to agree to abide by it if we do it however, or it will just be a waste of time.

I'm open to any other suggestions people might have. Certainly throw them out and let's hear them. I certainly don't want to get in a revert war with anyone, but I am holding my ground as an editor. I am a liberal democrat and do not support Westlund in any way shape or form, so calling me bias won't work. Davidpdx 05:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A challange was made in terms of proving Westlund's position on abortion. Here is a quote from the Eugene Weekly and the link to the article:

"Westlund also supports abortion rights, including access to morning-after pills." [1]

Hopefully this is enough proof to put the issue to rest. Davidpdx 07:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Choice

Well, I guess since you guys seem insistent on buying into Westlund's literature, the best approach will be to expand his entry to include what constitutes 'pro-choice' in the Westlund dictionary. I'll take that on tonight or something, including highlights from our discussion here.

btw, since we're holding up unbiased-ness credentials, I'm not affiliated with any campaign for governor in Oregon. I don't even live in Oregon any longer. My only bias on this is seeing politicians I know accurately portrayed. unsigned by User:Babbage ct 00:47, July 4, 2006

I think your treading on the edge here. First, I have not "bought" anything. Second, this is an encyclopedia that is suppose to remain NPOV. What you are suggesting is pushing your point of view. As I said earlier, I believe the voters should make up their minds if he is telling the truth or not.

Personally, the abortion issue is important, but not the only issue in elections. Certainly you make it sound as though it is. As someone else stated, there is no commission of choice stating who is pro-choice and who isn't.

If there is something that can be put in to clarify the issue, that's fine. It has to remain NOPV. However, the tone you are taking is really not giving me that impression.

I've made some suggestions on the talk page, none of which you have commented on as either for or against. My feeling is you probably didn't even take the time to read them.

Lastly, as I have asked others please sign your name after your comments. I had to go in and add your name as well as others to make sure it was clear who said what on the talk page. Davidpdx 09:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested not maintaining NPOV. Frankly, i think this issue does need to be clarified on the page so that readers can make up their own minds. I had originally written this article neutrally and specifically left the abortion issue out so that voters could check things out for themselves. Since you insisted on injecting it in, a full accounting is needed. I suggest adding the following:

Westlund supports abortion rights and access to the morning after pill. During his time in the legislature, however, he has also supported waiting periods, requiring doctors to read a state-written abortion document to patients and parental notification for minors.

Simple and factual. Any problems? babbage 15:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In general that is good. However I'd like to see the bill numbers added to the article with references. It makes the case stronger that he supported those specific restrictions to access. Also was the waiting period 24 hours or 48 hours? That could be added easily as well. Davidpdx 23:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's try this. I suggest for readability everything in parens goes into footnotes with links to the actual legislation.

Westlund supports abortion rights and access to the morning after pill. During his time in the legislature, however, he has also supported 24-hour waiting periods with state-written statements that doctors must read to patients (HB2532 in 2005 and HB 2547 in 2003), parental notification for minors (HB2605 in 2005) and expanding homicide laws to redefine “human being” to include fetuses and embryos at any stage of development (HB2020 in 2005).

babbage 14:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of asking you to add the following words, "During his time in the legistlature, however, he has also supported restrictions on abortion including..." (the bolded parts are added and all of the text you proposed text remains).

That would make it a bit more specific in terms of them being restrictions and highlighting that fact he is wishywashy on the issue. What do you think? Davidpdx 23:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another throught I had after I wrote the one above. This should be a stand alone paragraph. Maybe it would be best to try to break the sentences up a bit so we don't start having run-on sentnences. I'm wondering about putting links to the legislation as well.

I'm also thinking in that paragraph of adding the following: "It is unclear how successful Westlund will be in the November General Election due to the fact that the Libertarian Party has chosen to run anti-abortion candidate Mary Starrett."Davidpdx 23:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it always unclear how successful a candidate will be? That phrase just seems unneeded. --Liface 01:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's true. Here's what I'm trying to say: There are six candidates running for governor and each one of them has a diffrent view on abortion. My thought is, most likely the people who are anti-abortion will split their vote between Starrett, Westlund and Saxton. From right to middle, Starrett is the most hard line anti abortion of the three conservatives running, then Westlund, then Saxton. What I'm trying to point out is given Westlund's unclear position (yes I know Babbage is going to laugh at me admitting that) voters who truly care about the issue are going to vote for someone who has a clear position, versus someone who is whishy-washy. Davidpdx 04:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, back to flush left just because the indent was getting out of control. I agree that this should be a separate graf in the piece, and I'll break it up into a few sentences before adding it. I'm not sure what you are wondering about links to the legislation. Do you think we should not link to the bills? I figure any links we can provide is only good news. Plus it insulates against someone coming along and say, no, he never backed that. The proof will be right there.

As for the analysis on the candidates and their respective positions and who will vote for whom, I don't think we should be in the business of prognosticating how voters will break. Plus, there can be reasonable disagreement on the forecasts. For example, I agree Starrett is the right-most of the three, but I'm not sure who is next on the issue, Westlund of Saxton. Saxton doesn't have the legislative history that Westlund does, but he had some tough talk in the primary. Making this kind of voter interpretation assumes that most voters are single issue, which I at least hope they are not.

Besides, any overall election discussion about where all the candidates are more properly belongs on the 2006 oregon governor's race wiki, not an individual candidate page. babbage 14:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm fine with that. I still think we should make sure to list each of the bills he supported that were pro-life, the year and the bill number. It would be even better if we can find links to the bills on the Oregon Legislature website. I think essentially this covers against anyone claiming it wasn't properly sourced. Davidpdx 11:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Governor's Race Section

I moved the paragraph about him changing his party affilation down and eliminated one sentence because it was repetitive. I also added updated information in terms of the number of signatures that the campaign claims they have.

There is definately a need for more information in this section though. It's kind of short and could use more details. Davidpdx 01:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the word 'unverified' before the campaigns claim on how many signatures it has. As we all know, a campaign really has to gather about twice as many signatures as it needs because many will be thrown out. Do people think we should specify in the text that this is a camapaign count? babbage 15:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think just stating that they are unverified is fine. The validation rate for initative petitions has been about 65% so that's probably true that they would have to gather more then the 18,465. If I were running their campaign I'd shoot for 30,000 (thinking worst case senario is a 60% validation rate). Davidpdx 17:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the signature count as his campaign is saying they have reached the number of signatures they need. However, I have it from an internal source that they are trying to reach 30,000 by the deadline. Davidpdx 01:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senate Category

I'm afraid I don't know how to do the Category stuff. I've removed the mention of Westlund being a member of the Oregon House of Representatives. He is not. He used to be. He is now in the Senate. Could someone make the correction? babbage 15:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look by clicking on the Oregon Government category and going to see what other categories are within it. I can't seem to find one for the Oregon State Senate, unless I'm blind (which may be the case with as tired as I am). I want to say that we should start the category, but then I'm afraid it will pop up somehow. Davidpdx 09:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an Oregon State Senate category. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Oregon_State_Senators babbage 03:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's good to know. There are a few other articles about Oregon State Senators, so it might be good to make sure they are properly categorized I guess. Davidpdx 08:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Ben Westlund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ben Westlund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/Oregon_Pig_Book_-_Finalpdf.pdf?docID=161
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100420060740/http://www.kgw.com/news/State-Treasurer-Westlund-succumbs-to-cancer-86766852.html to http://www.kgw.com/news/State-Treasurer-Westlund-succumbs-to-cancer-86766852.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://mom.deschutes.org/election/archive/20041102.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ben Westlund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708115019/http://www.capitolcurrents.com/2010/03/westlund-loses-battle-with-cancer.html to http://www.capitolcurrents.com/2010/03/westlund-loses-battle-with-cancer.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ben Westlund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121133449/http://wweek.com/editorial/3225/7482/ to http://wweek.com/editorial/3225/7482/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]