Jump to content

Talk:Jeff Merkley/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Statistical significance

My understanding of the field of statistics would suggest that "statistical tie" is a more accurate phrase than "statistically insignificant lead." If a "lead" is within the margin of error, statisticians do not consider it a lead. Political consultants do, all the time, but that doesn't make it so. -Pete (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right, but the citation doesn't say "statistical tie", so I'm reluctant to use that term. -kotra (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer "statistical tie" as well or say: "Merkley led Smith 44-42% (or whatever it was), which was within the margin of error and is considered a statistical tie." And then maybe pull in a different source like WW, The Oregonian, Portland Tribune, Washington Post, etc. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Blue Oregon as a reliable source

I don't think BlueOregon can generally be considered a reliable source (though there will certainly be exceptions). The two items that were sourced to BlueOregon were actually republished there from other sources, so I replaced the citations. But this is generally an area we should approach with a lot of careful thought. BlueOregon, like most blogs, does not have an editorial structure, procedural fact-checking, etc. Approved contributors simply publish on their own authority; entries cannot be presumed to be factual with any degree of certainty in most cases. -Pete (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually most things posted in articles about events, particularly in the news sections at BlueOregon are almost always sourced to original sources when not orginal reportage by a contributor there. While double checking it, it is usually a safe and reliable source for news items regardless of the editorial or opinion attending it. It is often mentioned in The Oregonian political reportage such as Mapes on Politics, The Stump, at The Oregonian. Lestatdelc (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
This is probably something that should be considered by a wider group -- I'm going to put a notification at Wikiproject Oregon and see what others think. -Pete (talk) 11:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Neither Mapes on Politics nor The Stump should be used either. Both appear to be opinion/columnist pieces (only can be used for citing the opinion of the author), though I'm not entirely certain on Mapes on Politics (his regular articles can be used, but not the opinion pieces). As to BlueOregon, its a blog that says it is "a place for progressive Oregonians to gather 'round the water cooler and share news, commentary, and gossip." (emphasis added). So, when you say you have commentary and gossip as a big part of what you do, taken in the context of the lack of editorial oversight/track record of making sure what it prints is correct, that means it is not really a Wikipedia defined reliable source, and should generally be avoided. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
A blog that by its own admission has a progressive focus and allows varied personal opinion by its authors (including rumor or hearsay) is hardly a reliable source by any definition. Clearly we should avoid using it as if it were. Steven Walling (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty clear case. If the blog sources its information, we should cite the original source here. If it does not, we shouldn't use the information at all. The guidelines do provide reasonable advice on this topic. -Rrius (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm in general agreement here, if the BlueOregon gets information from another source, getting the information from the horse's mouth is preferable if the source is unquestionably more reliable. I think BlueOregon is acceptable as an example for statements of opinion, though: For example, what do people say in particular about Smith and Merkley? — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 15:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this, at least in cases where the person in question is quoted directly. I have followed BlueOregon for some time, and it is clear that they are careful to confirm the identity of prominent commenters. Besides, its readership is large enough that it's difficult to imagine anyone allowing a misquote to go unmentioned in the comment threads. -Pete (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Source for expansion

The Oregonian just did an extensive profile of Merkley's first 8 months. -Pete (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Pope, Charles (September 8, 2009). "Jeff Merkley, Oregon's rookie senator, learns the ropes". The Oregonian.

Proposed Additions and Changes

My name is Sarah Pierle and I am a staffer for Senator Jeff Merkley. I would like to suggest content for the Senator’s Wikipedia page based on these articles related to his committee assignments, his Oregon office presence and his legislative agenda.

I propose that the Senator's wife's name be spelled correctly in the information pod on the right side of the page. The correct spelling of her name is Mary Sorteberg.

I propose that Wikipedia add information on Senator Merkley’s committee assignments. They can be found here: http://senate.gov/general/committee_assignments/assignments.htm

Additional information on his Banking assignment can be found here: http://www.katu.com/news/local/38178419.html

Additional information on his HELP assignment can be found here: http://www.kpic.com/news/local/37600414.html

Additional information on his EPW assignment can be found here: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/argus/index.ssf?/base/news/1232133660134080.xml&coll=6

I propose that Wikipedia add information related to Senator Merkley’s presence in Oregon through his state offices. Information on the location of state offices can be found on the Senator’s website: http://merkley.senate.gov/

I propose that Wikipedia add information about Senator Merkley’s commitment to hold town hall meetings in each of Oregon’s 36 counties every year. An article related to that commitment can be found here: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/argus/index.ssf?/base/news/1241203875162310.xml&coll=6

In addition to this basic information about Senator Merkley’s committee assignments and Oregon presence, I propose adding information about the Senator’s legislative agenda during his first year in office.

A six-month evaluation of the Senator can be found here, in this AP story: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2009457234_merkley12.html

An article on the Senate Banking Committee’s confirmation of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, which Senator Merkley Voted against, can be found here:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/business/economy/18fed.html

An article on the full Senate’s confirmation of Ben Bernanke, which Merkley also opposed, can be found here: http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2010/01/25/daily42.html

Two Q&A’s with The Wall Street Journal that explain the Senator’s positions on Bernanke in more depth can be found here: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/01/22/qa-sen-jeff-merkley-on-bernanke-confirmation-battle/ and here: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/01/22/qa-sen-jeff-merkley-on-bernanke-confirmation-battle/

An article related to Senator Merkley’s efforts to create jobs by retrofitting homes and businesses can be found here:

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=126327102216693600

Specific information on Senator Merkley’s bill to make homes and buildings more energy efficient can be found here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1574

An article detailing the Senator’s position on the recent health care reform legislation in Congress, as well as his vote, can be found here: http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/12/oregon_senators_see_health_bil.html

Statistics incorrect

Under the topic with approval statistics, the May 2010 numbers must be incorrect. I don't know what the numbers should be, but I'm pretty sure that 43% + 46%+18% does not equal 100%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.189.84 (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Political positions updated

This article has not had any substantial revisions since November 2010 and much of the information is out-of-date. I have added five new subsections under Political positions that reflect Senator Merkley's recent legislation and political activity. I hope to bring some of the other sections up-to-date in the following weeks, and then begin updating articles about other Oregon politicians. NASAvegas (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Added three new subsections to Political positions, updated dead links, and organized existing and new content. NASAvegas (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking for someone to nominate this article for GA status

Does anyone else think this article is up to GA status?--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Why so little information on Merkley

I'm watching the "IRS Hearings" and I watched Rep. Jason Chaffetz do a masterful job of crossing the IRS commissioner and I look up his profile. It has his position on 5 times the issues as Sen. Merkley has on his Wiki entry. Chaffetz's talks about his father being Jewish and his mother is Christian Science and he's a Mormon. There is no where near the detail of Mr. Merkley. And the same holds true for the rest of the Merkley page. Why is that?

Feel free to add what you can find which is reliably sourced. Note this is a biography of a living person and strict sourcing rules apply. —EncMstr (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Committee assignments

Merkley is now on Foreign Relations and has rotated off of Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeff Merkley. 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, 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) 21:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeff_Merkley/Archive_1&oldid=1066781708"