Talk:Sam Adams (Oregon politician)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

removed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

“ On July 7th, 2009, the Recall Sam Adams Committee formally filed the paperwork which permits it to begin collecting the 32,183 valid signatures of registered Portland voters, in order to hold a recall election directed at Mayor Adams. ”

The above was given its own section but the source itself even suggests this effort has an unlikely chance of succeeding. Sorry, I don't see this as being that notable of an effort yet and inserting on this encyclopedia article as being unneeded. Perhaps if teh signatures are actually gathered and the measure is actually voted on? Thoughts? -- Banjeboi 15:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you already know my thoughts on the subject, and who else is going to comment? In point of fact, recall efforts are not that common, and while most eventually fail, this is a serious, credible effort that is garnering a lot of attention in Portland. The publication I sourced is very friendly to Mayor Adams' administration, so its not surprising they are trying to downplay the significance of the recall. Its not like Portland has a conservative paper that is hostile to Mayor Adams that I could have utilized instead, and which would have likely provided a more optimistic assessment of the recall's likelihood for success; one has to go with the sources that actually exist, and in the Portland-area, all news media sources are friendly to Mayor Adams, and thus one has to use one's judgment in order to filter out the non-NPOV aspects of the source material. To suggest it isn't notable, with regard to Mayor Adams' tenure, is frankly laughable. Even if the effort fails to gather enough signatures, it should still be noted somewhere in the article, as a significant political event during the course of his administration.

The only real question, in my view, is whether the recall deserves its own sub-section. If it fails to make it onto the ballot, then probably not. But while the recall effort is in effect, it should have its own sub-section, because A) it is still potentially successful, and B) it is very likely that a substantial portion of people viewing this article will be doing so in order to read about the recall. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise, albeit one which pretty obviously favours my perspective, I have made the sub-section on the recall election 2.4.1, instead of 2.5, thus denoting it as having relatively less significance than sections 2.1-2.4 KevinOKeeffe (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an unlikely recall effort ergo likely also unnotable. Politics is full of cranky folks who work the system for various reasons but we don't include every recall effort or even every recall ballot measure, we include with due weight on notable subjects. This effort hardly seems notable as of yet, wait until it is. Even by the source you're citing the main point of that article that you apparently commented on, suggesting a COI, is that the recall is unlikely to occur as the group is woefully underfunded, understaffed and going against the political history of the city. They apparently have 90 days to gether signatures, perhaps once we get closer to October it will be more evident how to treat this. The article also notes that two recall efforts failed in 2003 against then-Mayor Vera Katz. We don't write for those looking for info about the recall as this article isn't about that - it's about Adams. I've added a more neutral source and re-written this. I still think it's a bit of recentism but can hold my nose for the moment. -- Banjeboi 16:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have arrived at a concord, as it were. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Columbia River Crossing

Not sure if this should stay or not -- but if it does, it should be sourced to a reliable source, not a blog. So here's the replacement text I came up with, before the original contributor removed the entire section: -Pete (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I-5 Columbia River Crossing

On September 18, 2009 Adams came out in opposition of the $4 billion, 12 lane replacement for the freeway bridge over I-5, a plan he had once supported. Adams issued a statement saying;

“ I'd rather settle for a bad bridge for another 25 years than a terrible bridge that punishes Portland for another 100 years. ”

</ref>

I Realized that and removed it, I am still working on the section with more information from reliable sources. --Halvorsen brian (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I added more information to the section, something it needed to be its own section. --Halvorsen brian (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed

In July 2009, an effort was started to collect over 32,000 signatures of registered Portland voters, the first step toward a recall, which requires a ballot initiative decided in a special election.

I thought the above was a bit undue and trivial back when it was added and this doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. Lots of politicians have recall "efforts" against them and it just doesn't seem to be that notable. I also removed some other bits but more eyes on what seems to be trivial content would be appreciated. -- Banjeboi 00:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Though that exact wording is pretty ho-hum, the news about the recall effort has continued since July into the fall, and is definitely worth including in a sentence or two. Steven Walling 01:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems really trivial, is this tied to the intern issue or what is the context - let's make it make sense instead of just people don't like him. -- Banjeboi 01:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Trivial? The effort to recall the mayor of a major city? I hardly agree. There have been dozens of continuing news stories about it. If it were just a flash in the pan after the previous scandal, I would agree in terms of triviality. But the recall has had legs of its own even after the intern news has faded from the limelight. Steven Walling 01:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of efforts to recall major politicians, I imagine every president, senator, representative and most mayors have at least one nutter officially engaged in this way. Since we are now five months later is there any sourcing that now suggests it's likely to make it to ballot or anything else? I mean local news folks are supposed to recycle stories and you would be justifiable upset if they didn't cover the mayor. But is this effort actually going anywhere or is there a deadline so we know it either made it or not? -- Banjeboi 01:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

These are not recycled stories or "just one nutter." It's a political movement that has continued to gain steam since the intern scandal, but is covered in detail outside stories about the previous news. In other words, this is a story in and of itself, not just a side show to the sex scandal. Adams is a major public official, and none of the content violates good sourcing rules or BLP in any way. Steven Walling 01:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm disappointed you're edit-warring on this but I have confidence we can sort this out. Please present some sourcing as i have asked above that this effort is now seen as likely to pass, I'll start a new section for the other disputed content you have re-added. -- Banjeboi 02:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

More recent sources of continuining effort: Oregonian, Portland Business Journal, and lots more. Steven Walling 02:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

More added now. Steven Walling 02:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the efforts but it seems the we've simply doubled the problem. Nothing suggests why this is encyclopedic or needed and it sure feels like WP:Undue. Which is the same issue with a lot of the content here. We should look at the sum total of what reliable sources have to say on the subject, not just those who want to take jabs at them. Between television, magazines, newpapers et al this is all we have? We are belabouring every mucky episode possible while ignoring the actual day-by-day work of an American mayor. This seems like a really bad idea and makes Wikipedia look like we have an agenda, and not a good one. -- Banjeboi 14:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Benji, you came along because you really care about shepherding GLBT bios like this one. But this recall effort is an Oregon issue about an elected public official. It's been cited numerous times by reliable sources as a continuing debate among Oregonians. How is it undue weight to have a few short paragraphs about the recall of a mayor? You haven't produced a single convincing argument as to why we should remove it and ignore all the news stories covering this as if it were very serious. Steven Walling 19:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. Actually I have but I accept that you simply disagree. I think it would be best to focus on what relevance is this in relation to the subject of the article, what weight reliable sources put on it and what weight in relationship to everything else. Reading the content we have seems like this is the main issue and i just find that hard to believe. I thin we are dealing with a case of recentism blown up past due weight. -- Banjeboi 19:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In an attempt to compromise, I've also removed the paragraph that referred solely to comments made to Randy Leonard. I think that was an interesting example of what the recall campaign supporters are like, but it is a side issue. With my most recent removal, the mention comprises a single three-sentence paragraph. I hardly think that's overblown recentism, for a movement to depose the mayor of one of the 50 largest cities in the country. If it blows over completely, we can just reduce it even further in the future. Steven Walling 03:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Benji, this recall "event" (calls for it, the actual effort, its failure, and now a second attempt) have been receiving on-going coverage over the last six months in the major media in Portland. This far out weighs the other coverage he has received (scandals sell newspapers, cutting ribbons at the local mall doesn't do as much). In fact the only other items I can remember about Adams since the original scandal was that he was behind on his mortgage payment, and then the resignation/lawsuit by his former assistant (or was it his PR person?). There are some mentions of him here and there regarding things like the new bridge, and I think even the new light rail line, but the majority of coverage is about the recall effort. Thus covering it is not undue. Maybe we don't need six pages of it, but a few sentences would be appropriate. Also, as to your "all politicians face recall" type argument, simply not true. For one thing Presidents in the US can't be recalled, and in fact many office holders cannot be recalled. Not even every state has recall, in fact it is a minority of states that allow for recall for state offices. And though many groups talk about recalling an official, not that many actually take the time to even follow through with registering to collect signatures. So, it is a significant (and encyclopedic item) item to note in the article. And "recentism" might have worked if this way back when the scandal broke and people only talked about doing a recall and nothing ever happened since, but stuff has happened since and this is now 9 month old story. It would alomst be like saying we shouldn't mention he is mayor cause that is so recent and as a percentage of his life his time in office is a rather small percentage. So, in sum: recall effort should be in the article, probably around a paragraph, but should not be in the lede. Now, if they actually gather enough signatures to get this on the ballot, then more coverage is warranted and it becomes lede worthy. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not dispute it has been covered or that it should be included here. Putting every other issue aside we serve our readers and I must say this was still reading as "who cares?" And yes, lots and lots of mayors have recall efforts and US Presidents have impeachment efforts and other elected officials get repeated votes of non-confidence etc ad nauseum. Instead of telling our readers this has/is happening, we need to show, don't tell why this is occuring, what is the context? I have now moved this section to the affair section, added why the recall, removing the extra bits but left all the sourcing in place. Per NPOV we likely should add if Adams still as seen as having widespread support, if the recall effort seems to be having any effect, if the efforts have been criticized, etc. -- Banjeboi 17:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you don't dispute it should be covered here, then why did you remove it and start this thread!?! I could understand if it was just the wording or details from the above quote that started this thread, but the tone of your message does not seem to indicate that. It indicates (per your: "Lots of politicians have recall "efforts" against them and it just doesn't seem to be that notable.") you don't think the recall effort should be covered. This comes across even more so from your earlier removal of content related to the recall effort. So, make up your mind, in or out. Now, I did not in any way above endorse any sort of specific wording. In fact by my closing sentences above on how the topic should be covered, that should indicate the current wording may not be proper. I am merely saying that mentioning of the recall efforts is warranted in the article. And like in EVERY other article we have on Wikipedia, we do need to provide context, make sure it isn't UNDUE, or OR, that the sources are RS, an so on, and so on... But you wanted it removed months ago in a previous removal, and again a couple of days ago. The consensus here seems to be the recall effort should be covered. Again, not endorsing any specific wording here, just that it needs to be covered (and in fact not covering it would be a violation of UNDUE since the topic has been covered ad nauseam in the media). Aboutmovies (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

On a BLP we err conservatively. It was worded poorly enough as to not fit into the article and accompanied by other content suggesting a slander campaign of sorts was occuring. Now that it's been trimmed to be dispassionately reporting what was going on and why it's reasonable and acceptable to include. It still should be balanced out as I indicated above but at least now Wikipedia doesn't seem to hold an opinion on the subject - just reporting something in context and relevant to the subject. -- Banjeboi 22:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Also removed

“ On August 21, 2009 the TNT show Leverage was filming at Portland City Hall when a truck driver for the show singled out City Commissioner Randy Leonard as he walked into the building. As Leonard states it the man was sitting in the cab of his truck and started yelling at him, complaining that Leonard was getting in the way of having Mayor Sam Adams recalled. Leonard said the man used derogatory language about Adams. Leonard said "I usually ignore those kind of comments, [but] given his relationship to the city -- he was working in the building -- I felt they were inappropriate. On a number of levels I felt like he violated a number or protocols, I said what I said and I don't regret it." ”

This seems quite the soapbox - someone said something and got upset. This just doesn't seem needed at all. -- Banjeboi 02:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed this too

“ On September 9, 2009 a formal complaint was filed against Adams to the Oregon Secretary of State's office. The complaint said that Adams tried to interfere with a woman gathering signatures for the recall. The complaint against Adams stems from an incident near Pioneer Courthouse Square in downtown Portland, where Adams and the his accuser, Rondine Chiselline, crossed paths. The woman said that she was gathering signatures for the recall campaign and asked Adams to sign the petition. Chiselline said Adams was "not respectful" and had "an intimidating stance." Adams categorically denied Chiselline's version of events saying "This is absolutely, positively false and there were plenty of witnesses." The Oregon Secretary of State's office later stated it would not investigate the complaint filed by the recall campaign volunteer against Adams. ”

This seems utterly trivial. X complains and files complaint against Y. Y disputes X's version. Case is ignored. Oh and officer - he had ... "an intimidating stance." -- Banjeboi 02:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Agreed on that part alone. I've removed it. Steven Walling 02:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing needs to be removed per WP:Undue and likely WP:Soapbox or WP:Coatrack. It's simply a tiff from who obviously doesn't like the mayor and their complaint was ignored. Why are we wedging it into an encyclopedia article. This is akin to going into great length about someone picking their nose - who cares? Get rid of it. -- Banjeboi 14:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Recalling a mayor of a major US city is akin to nose picking? Are you nuts? Steven Walling 19:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I see this has been removed again, can we leave it out and move on or is there more to be worked out? -- Banjeboi 17:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems a bit odd that it was removed. It's more than X and Y. It's Adams vs. the people who want to recall him. It was in fact a big story and a good representation of what happens on a day-to-day basis. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Show there is a massive recall effort instead of using this ignored compliant as an example. -- Banjeboi 22:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Kind of hard when you would probably delete that too... --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A review of my work on this article likely shows I am more interested in presenting an encyclopedic article rather than a juicy tabloid piece. This article has been plagued by recentism and scandal. This is common but should be fixed, and we have done that. My opinions on the subject of the article matter not, nor do yours. What does matter is what is reported in reliable sources and our presentation of that content. We can't cherry-pick the most negative aspects possible ignoring everything else. We also should avoid driveling into needless detail. It does happen but should be corrected, not just on this article but all articles. We can do better and we should. We report dispassionately and allow the reader to decide what to think. -- Banjeboi 00:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a significant event because of the lack of possibility for a recall effort. I'm not going to call a spade a spade here. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Civility

The rhetorical query "Are you nuts?" is probably not the model for the dialogue we are looking to achieve here. I'm just sayin' Cheers David in DC (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal life section

This section takes great pains to avoid the use of the name of the legislative intern with whom Adams acknowledged having an affair after he became 18. I didn't see any discussion of this, and while I'm very sensitive to WP:BLP issues, I don't see why the name is avoided here. It seems a prudish omission. The subject is an adult, his name is well-known and used in the general media, he has conducted numerous interviews and photo shoots using his name so there are no privacy issues; and in fact, his name appears in the title of one of the citations used in this very article. Are there objections to adding the name to this article itself? --Esprqii (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your reaction to my reversion of your edit. It displays the civility and collaborative ethic that must prevail if we're going to build an encyclopedia.

On the merits, I have nothing new to say that's not in the archived discussion. I'll summarize, and then shut up.

I believe the name adds nothing to the article. And it risks harm to underage interns/pages/acolytes etc. being groomed right now by people in positions of power. They should know that wikipedia won't out their names. We make a strong statement, thoroughly in line with the principle of WP:HARM, when we refrain from publishing a name that other media, who set their ethical bar lower than ours, choose to publish. That strong statement is not about protecting this now-adult man from harm. It's about protecting others, now in the position he was once in, who might embrace their experience less heartily. They should know that, at least at wikipedia, their privacy is safe. David in DC (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored (policy vs. essay). Beau Breedlove's name appears in several of the cited articles from major news organizations[1][2][3](redirects[4])[5][6]. Breedlove is also no longer a minor, and allegedly the relationship was not of a sexual nature while he was a minor.--Anthonzi (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

For reference, see the archived discussion, and I support reopening this topic. It's been a year since we last discussed. --Esprqii (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

@Anthonzi: how about giving discussion a little time before changing the article? At least seven days of discussion is the norm. —EncMstr (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I dont know if this is the right place to raise this issue, however: The personal life section exlclusively contains information related to him being gay. Surely there must be other relevant things to add? I don't plan to contribute, just a pointer which might improve the article:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.157.170.83 (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the "Personal life" section in most biographies deals with relationships rather than biographical issues, which are covered in the "Early life" section. I think the biggest problem here is that the two middle paragraphs take up a significant portion of the section and should probably be put in a separate "Controversies" section. --Esprqii (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

college?

In one section, this article says he dropped out of the University of Oregon. In another section it says his alma matter is the University of Oregon. His LinkedIn profile says he received a BA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.50.156.112 (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

New lead/updates needed

It's unfair that we are holding Sam Adam's personal life to a higher standard of scrutiny than other politicians in wikipedia. Below I summarize the facts and my arguments. It really sounds as though this article has been unfairly written by Adams opponents. My goal here is for a more fair article. For the record, I have read through almost all the comments about this topic, even if I re-mention some of them below.

THE FACTS 1. Adams had legal sex with an 18-year-old who didn't work for him. 2. The 18-year-old quietly met with news reporters to tell them about it. They didn't care. 3. A political opponent learned about what happened and tried to use this information to smear Adams. 3. Reporters were now interested. When they reporters Adams for details, he lied about the relationship.

MY ARGUMENTS: 1. Much more prominent politicians have had much more colorful scandals, but those don't appear to make it into the leads of the articles. Clinton, the President, got Lewinsky to lie *under oath* but that's not lede material for the article about him. Edwards, one of the most prominent politicians in the US, lied, got someone pregnant while cheating on his wife and may be going to jail because of it. But that's not lead material about him. Why are we holding Adams to a different standard? 2. I don't believe the evidence shows that people really care much about the scandal and that it's fair to say much about the recall. Other mayors in Portland have faced recalls -- Katz, for example, faced two -- but that's just part of the job, what happens to any mayor who rocks the boat and shakes things up. I honestly don't know of a mayor or great public servant who did much who *didn't* face a recall effort (and nasty editorials). That's part of the job of any great leader. But these efforts and these details are not lead material. Similarly, Clinton's impeachment -- a much bigger deal involving a much serious lies -- is not lede material for the article about him. A barely-funded and low-interest recall effort that died is not proof that many people care about this scandal so much that it's lead material. 3. Since the scandal, Adams has done a lot of things. These barely get mentioned anywhere in the article. Clean Energy Works, Vestas, Youth Corps, the iPhone app are all programs being watched across the country and being emulated in other places. They deserve to be mentioned, not taken out just because they make Adams look good. 4. The recent shooting in Portland was a huge deal. It's unfair to take that out either. It got huge coverage, and I think we need to write about it.

SOLUTION 1. Take out the mention of the scandal from the lead. 2. Reduce the section about the minor recall efforts. 3. Include *new* information about what has happened in the first year or so of Adams term.

JacksonThomson (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Thomas Adams (resident of Southeast Portland and city news junkie who does not work for the city or any politician)

I think you raise some good points. I don't think it's necessarily holding Adams to a higher standard to have the information in the lede, though; off the top of my head, I checked several other politicans with sex scandals who do have the scandal in the lede: Mark Sanford, Jim McGreevey, Larry Craig, even Oregon's own Bob Packwood and Neil Goldschmidt. I'm sure there was considerable discussion in all those cases and it's certainly welcome in this case. My own opinion is that the info should stay in Adams's case; his political career is relatively light at this point and the scandal is still an important part of his biography to date. That of course may change.

As to adding info about his term as mayor, definitely that needs to be expanded in the section on his term as mayor. However, I think a laundry list of new programs do not belong in the lede, at least until we know what really will be his legacy. If we want to say in the lede that his focus on mayor has been on green technology or whatever, a sentence or two might be in order. If you are the anon who added that info to the lede, I hope you see that I didn't remove it but simply moved it almost intact (except for one unreferenced sentence) to the mayor section.

Regarding the recall, I don't see in mentioned in the lede at all, and barely in the article as far as I can see. I would, however, point out that a potentially more interesting new recall effort is in the works and Beau Breedlove is supporting it. Speaking of Breedlove, I sometimes have trouble taking this article seriously since it refuses to mention his name. He is in the news again conducting interviews, supporting the recall, and writing a book about his experiences with Adams. Breedlove is at least as notable as Maria Belen Chapur (Who's that? Mark Sanford's Argentine lover, prominent mentioned in his Wikipedia article) and there is no reason for Breedlove not to be mentioned in this article.

I appreciate the discussion and hope others will weigh in. --Esprqii (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If Adams was anything other than a public official and there wasn't so much coverage of the event in the press, I would agree with the idea of scaling back any coverage of his personal life, especially his love life. But he is mayor, and there is no pressing privacy issue. Our treatment of the event is already much fairer to Adams than most of the news reports, and it should stay just like it is. Steven Walling 20:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and discussion. I definitely agree that we should include Breedlove's name. All the evidence shows he relishes the attention and that he was an adult when it happened. I think he deserves an entire wikipedia article.

Regarding the recall, I must have been looking at a cached version of the page. It's not in the lede and shouldn't be.

Regarding the lede and the sex scandal.

1. Just because the Oregonian gave the issue a lot of coverage is not evidence that it's a big deal. I think most Portlanders consider the O out of touch with what people care about, which explains why its circulation is plunging. The O's lead stories were written by "reporter,\" Anna Griffin, who is and was a columnist and longtime Adams critic who said -- in writing -- that she was "infuriated with Adams" because of the affair. Her stories are biased on their face, and her tirade against Adams is overblown. Just because the mainstream media hypes things up or because we can legally get away with the privacy issue doesn't mean we should. Wikipedia is becoming a better source of information than much of the mainstream media precisely because it does NOT do these things.

3. Comparing Adams to Neil Goldshmidt or Larry Craig is ridiculous. Goldshmidt raped a 14 year old. Craig, a closeted homophobic homosexual, was convicted of a sex offense. Having consensual, legal sex with an adult is not the same as raping someone or being a hypocrite convicted of a sex offense.

4. Even the Clinton and Edwards scandals involved much more serious issues, but they aren't mentioned in the lede. Clinton cheated on his wife, lied, got people to lie under oath and was impeached by congress. Edwards cheated on his wife, impregnated a woman, lied and may have embezzled money to cover it up. Yet these two scandals are not mentioned in the ledes of these people. It's unfair to hold Adams to a higher standard than everyone else. (I'm unfamiliar with the Packwood scandal but will do some reading on it). JacksonThomson (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing about the truth about Adams situation. Wikipedia does not depend on truth, but on verifiability. That means that if many reliable, published sources cover a subject, we do too. If the Oregonian and others sources extensively write about something that absolutely does make it something Wikipedia can and should include. End of story. Notability through coverage in source material is a non-negotiable part of the project. Steven Walling 08:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, many thanks to Esprqii who asked me to return to this conversation. My views are well and exhaustively covered in the archived debate on adding the name.

I'm reposting this from above. It seems to belong here more than up there: I believe the name adds nothing to the article. And it risks harm to underage interns/pages/acolytes etc. being groomed right now by people in positions of power. They should know that wikipedia won't out their names. We make a strong statement, thoroughly in line with the principle of WP:HARM, when we refrain from publishing a name that other media, who set their ethical bar lower than ours, choose to publish. That strong statement is not about protecting this now-adult man from harm. It's about protecting others, now in the position he was once in, who might embrace their experience less heartily. They should know that, at least at wikipedia, their privacy is safe. David in DC (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) First, to JacksonThomson, I was in no way comparing Adams' situation to Craig or Goldschmidt other than the fact that they are politicians who have had sex scandals. Each situation is completely unique.

Second, to David in DC, I would return the thanks for continuing the civil discussion. I had not considered the points you make and they are worth considering. I don't really agree that publishing the name of someone who obviously desires publicity would threaten (or reassure!) someone in a similar situation who wants to remain private--but I see the general point. I would say, though, that if BB continues in his obvious interest in publicity, he may become notable enough on his own that this discussion is moot. Granted, writing a memoir does not bestow notability, but this situation is certainly fluid and bears watching. Fortunately, the encyclopedia has forever to wait... --Esprqii (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, none of my comments refer to whether we should publish the name. I don't care either way on that, and I think there are compelling arguments for both sides. I'm just referring to the points first mentioned in this thread about removing information from the lede et cetera. Steven Walling 18:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the lead seems biased against Adams, as though written by his opponents. It also desperately needed an update because a lot of things have happened in the past two years. I modified it without checking this discussion first, which I probably should have, so sorry, but I do think this is a major improvement and agree with the folks that think the old version was biased and outdated. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by PortlandFan (talk • contribs) 04:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"Occupy Portland says some will face arrest in eviction" resource

UPDATE • Group invites other Occupy groups on the West Coast to join Saturday party by Jim Reddden in The Portland Tribune, Nov 11, 2011, excerpt ...

People claiming to speak for Occupy Portland sent mixed signals Friday about whether protesters would comply with Mayor Sam Adams’ directive that the protesters leave Chapman and Lownsdale squares after midnight Saturday. Adams told reporters Thursday morning that a number of incidents at or near the camps tipped the balance against allowing the protest to stay in the squares.

99.19.43.8 (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Major updates

I majorly updated this page because it hadn't been in a while, and I tried to add items that got the most press and seemed to have the largest impact (but reasonable minds can differ on this selection, and feel free to change them). Is the lead a little long? I honestly think it works better this way -- so much happened in such a short period of time, probably more than happened with most mayors -- but I'm curious to see what others think. Sorry for the anonymous update -- out of town right now and can't for the life of me remember my username/password. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.239.100 (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems like way too much of little details about programs any mayor would put into place and way too long for a lede section. Lists of securing funding, encouraging business, establishing composting, all of that seems pretty trivial for the lede. I think it could be consolidated into a couple of sentences and let the mayor section go into more detail. I'll try and take a stab at it later. --Esprqii (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sam Adams outed by WW in 1993?

Does the original author have a citation demonstrating the Willamette Week outing Adams in '93? Based on the sources cited (the out.com article and the OPB stub) and some research on my own I'm gathering that Adams was out when he started in politics and that the WW was responsible for uncovering the relationship around which the 2009 scandal centered. I'm not touching the article now because I'm assuming the original author knew something I'm not able to find and mis-cited, but if that's not the case that sentence should go- it dramatically alters the image one might have of the beginning of Adams' political career and also of the quality of investigative journalism associated with the Willamette Week paper. Don't Panic (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

References