Talk:David Wu

Untitled

Archives: Archieve 1 Dec 10, 2005-Dec 31, 2006

---

Should this page be locked?--he's been in the news lately, with some unflattering things being said. There might be some vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.241.143 (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

reversion

User Nealpeartisgod recently made significant edits to two sections that have been controversial in the past. The parts he or she edited or removed were the result of a long process of discussion of compromise, and the changes were made with few words of justification. In the first case, it was claimed that Wu is from Taiwan, and therefore "not Chinese-American." This reflects a lack of recognition of the points made in discussion above, including the Chinese-American designation included in a cited work. In the second case, the "controversy" section was declared "non-controversial," without justification. The amount of interest generated by that section in recent weeks proves that is not the case. Furthermore, Nealpeartisgod claims on his/her userpage that he/she hates China and that China should be nuked, which suggests a difficulty for him/her in maintaining a neutral point of view.

Two other users had made edits in the meantime. One of them had done two mutually exclusive edits - the second undid the first. The other one had done punctuation edits, which I reinstated after reverting the article.

-Pete 23:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Added information on Jon Stewart segment

Added the following text to the segment about the "Klingons in the WHite House"-speech:

On January 16, 2007, comedian Jon Stewart dedicated a short segment of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to talk about this speech.[1] He was joined in this discussion by Leonard Nimoy and George Takei, both of whom were actors on Star Trek (where they played Mr. Spock and Hikaru Sulu respectively).

Thought it may be considered relevant, being a form of cultural reaction coming from a rather popular medium. However, feel free to tell me I'm wrong, criticize my English, clean up my addition or the like. --TheFinalFraek 16:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Real Klingons?

Can Klingons really be known for anything? They're not real. I also wonder how much of this is racism contra Rice. 72.144.71.193 04:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Klingons/Controversy

I disagree with the most recent edit, which makes the "Klingons" section a subsection of "Controversy." That speech is not controversial, in the sense that the term is typically used for politicians. Some have called it silly, but in criticizing the integrity and motives of the Bush administration, Wu joined a large number of his fellow congresspeople and Americans, and took a position that is in fact quite common. -Pete 00:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Pete, I tend to agree with you and have reverted those changes made a note for that person to look at the talk page.

First, the Oregonian was changed from statewide paper to multistatewide paper. As far as I know there is no other statewide paper in Oregon. The Portland Tribune is distributed mostly in Portland and the suburbs. The Salem Statesmen Journal and Eugene Register-Guard are pretty much the same and are just specifically targeting Salem and Eugene. Yes, you can find them at newsstands in most big cities, but not everywhere.

Second, including the Klingon speech in the controversy section doesn't really fit very well. It's true that many people made fun of him for making the speech, but it is hardly controversial.

If the person (or persons) want to discuss the changes, then please do so. I'd appreciate if you'd do so before changing it back. Davidpdx 00:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks David - I hadn't noticed the Oregonian edit, good catch there! -Pete 02:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

video on youtube is gone due to "terms of use violation" remoking the external link139.184.30.19 12:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please link terms of use that are allegedly violated by its inclusion. I'm aware of no such violation, and YouTube is linked all over Wikipedia. -Pete 19:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think he means the video was removed on YouTube, but I'm not sure. Davidpdx 23:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I see. I found a different version on YouTube (presumably from a different TV network) and replaced the link. As long as we're going to have the section about this speech (which I'm not sure is necessary), it should have this video as a reference. -Pete 04:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense. I'm glad it got cleared up. Davidpdx 07:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That's very true. No one disagrees with him so it couldn't be controversial. Everyone just lined up and agreed. No problems here. 72.144.198.53 08:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I just attempted to fix the youtube link for the "Klingons" speech, and a bot removed it. Correct link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p892dUiTMss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.217.9 (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Categories

I have restored the removed categories Asian-American Politicans and Tawianese-American Politicans which were removed. It is possible for a person to fall within multiple categories as Wu definately does. This was discussed not to long ago and some compromises were made in terms of how he was described in the text of the article. I believe it does no harm to include the fact that he also falls into these two categories.

I am a resident of Oregon and have to some degree followed Wu's campaigns.Davidpdx 08:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

One definition of neutrality is the reader not be able to tell which side the author is on ("Neutral means I'm not on your side.)

The following paragraphs fail that test; I include them here since they are sourced.

In October 2004, The Oregonian (a statewide newspaper) alleged in a front page article that Wu, during the summer of 1976, had attempted to force an ex-girlfriend to have sex with him. Wu had just completed his junior year at Stanford University at the time. According to the article, Wu, then 21, was questioned by Police Capt. Raoul K. Niemeyer after the incident. Niemeyer reported that Wu had scratches on his face and neck, and wore a stretched T-shirt. Wu was not arrested and the woman declined to press charges.<:ref>Laura Gunderson, Dave Hogan and Jeff Kosseff (October 12, 2004). "Allegation of assault on woman in 1970s shadows Wu". The Oregonian. Retrieved 2007-01-16.</ref>

The story broke in the midst of a contentious race for Congress. Wu's Republican challenger, Goli Ameri, injected the story into her campaign in its waning days,<:ref>Hamilton, Don (October 22, 2004). "Ameri pummels Wu over incident". Portland Tribune. Retrieved 2006-09-13.

</ref> but Wu won the election with 58% of the vote to Ameri's 38% in spite of the story.

In June 2005, Wu went to Iraq and passed out polyester tee-shirts, made by an Oregon company, to American soldiers, ignoring the known risk of serious burns in the event of a fire. Despite soldiers having been catastrophically injured as a direct result of wearing polyester clothing, Wu continued to place earmarks in Congressional budget bills mandating the purchase of the company's unsuitable polyester garments.

<:ref>David Heath and Hal Bernton (October 14, 2007). "$4.5 million for a boat that nobody wanted". Seattle Times. Retrieved 2007-10-14. </ref> Please read WP:N and WP:BLP, and rephrase. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think these paragraphs should stay in and be rewritten. The problem is that now that they have been removed, inaction will essentially leave out things that should legitimately be mentioned in the article (referring to the incident in his 20's). The thing about the t-shirts is such a small issue, I'm not so sure it should be mentioned or not.

My strong preference is to have these put back in and then someone take a crack at rewriting them. It may be that the person who included them to begin with didn't take enough time in writing that section. There is POV all over Wikipedia unfortnately, it's one of the huge problems the "project" has to deal with. I think blatently removing it is the wrong way to deal with it though. Davidpdx 01:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I put them here so they can be rewritten. Reverting to non-neutral text on this matter is a BLP violation. (Cut, paste, take out the colons deactivating the footnotes, and rewrite, and we will have no problem.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Septen, what side are you perceiving the "author" to be on? To my reading, this text accurately reflects (1) that there was some kind of conflict, (2) that charges were not pressed, (3) that it affected a congressional race, and (4) that it was timed, by Wu's opponent in such a way that it was clearly intended to do so. What point of view do you feel is being pushed/overemphasized/whatever? We can't very well have a discussion unless you state your position. -Pete 22:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I hold (and WP:BLP/N agrees) that the tone of both paragraphs is that of an opponent. No neutral source would phrase either of them as they are now phrased. The first paragraph may be fixable simply enough by bringing the fact of no arrest, and no charges, into the first sentence; the t-shirt business harps on the danger in the manner of a blog, or a campaign address. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the T-shirt story is barely notable--a one-liner at most, and I don't think it even merits that. I think the sex-assault story is definitely noteworthy, especially with its injection into the 2004 campaign, but I would support the changes PMAnderson is suggesting. --Esprqii 22:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe until there is some kind of consensus the old paragraphs should be put back intact. I have no problem with them being rewritten, but for them to put pulled makes it look like supression of information in the article.

So there are two seperate issues 1) The paragraph dealing with the sex-assault story; 2) The paragraph dealing with the t-shirts. Let's deal with both of those seperately. I have started a new section for both. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THEM UNTIL CONSENSUS HAS BEEN REACHED. Davidpdx 03:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

PM Anderson -- an "opponent?" That doesn't answer my question. An opponent of what -- your position? What IS your position? I know you may think you have made yourself clear, but you have not. If the tone is the problem, perhaps you can propose a new version. Or better yet, as I suggested, simply say WHAT point of view you think the "tone" is trying to advance.

I think David's suggestion of pursuing both points in separate sections is a good one. Giving a clear articulation of your concern to begin the "sex scandal" section would get us off to the right start. -Pete 05:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

An opponent of David Wu, of course; I have no position whatever on David Wu, having heard of him Sunday. I do not see how I could have been clearer. (But I have now rewritten, as suggested above.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. If it helps you understand how we got here, I believe I wrote this section to begin with (though it has been the subject of discussion at several points.) I consider myself a supporter of David Wu. Not a stong supporter, it's not like I've contributed money or campaigned for him, but I think he's been a good legislator, and if I lived in his district I would have voted for him in each of his bids for reelection. So no, it was not written by an opponent of David Wu. But, I think we are improving the article. I like your most recent edits. -Pete 23:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Assult Story

I think this story is noteable enough to remain in the article. If it can be rewritten for clarity, I support that. However, I believe that paragraph should remain intact until consensus has been reached. Davidpdx 03:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the revised version is fine. --Esprqii 15:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have no problem with the revised version either. -Pete 17:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we've lost something important. According to news coverage at the time, it was understood that the Oregonian pursued the story of their own volition, and that Ameri avoided using the issue in her campaign for some time, but then reversed course and began campaigning on the issue. I believe the Hamilton article covers this aspect most directly. It seems like a significant element of the story to me. -Pete 23:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The sentence on Ameri is the same sentence as before; if it said that then, it should still do so. How about a tweak to Ameri then injected, however? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the before and after of what that paragraph looks like:

Before:

In October 2004, The Oregonian (a statewide newspaper) alleged in a front page article that Wu, during the summer of 1976, had attempted to force an ex-girlfriend to have sex with him. Wu had just completed his junior year at Stanford University at the time. According to the article, Wu, then 21, was questioned by Police Capt. Raoul K. Niemeyer after the incident. Niemeyer reported that Wu had scratches on his face and neck, and wore a stretched T-shirt. Wu was not arrested and the woman declined to press charges.[5]

The story broke in the midst of a contentious race for Congress. Wu's Republican challenger, Goli Ameri, injected the story into her campaign in its waning days,[6] but Wu won the election with 58% of the vote to Ameri's 38% in spite of the story.

After:

In October 2004, The Oregonian (a statewide newspaper) brought up an incident from 1976, in which no arrest or charges had been made, alleging in a front page article that Wu had attempted to force an ex-girlfriend to have sex with him. Wu had just completed his junior year at Stanford University at the time. According to the article, Wu, then 21, was questioned by Police Capt. Raoul K. Niemeyer after the incident. Niemeyer reported that Wu had scratches on his face and neck, and wore a stretched T-shirt.[5]

The story broke in the midst of a contentious race for Congress. Wu's Republican challenger, Goli Ameri, then injected the story into her campaign in its last days,[6] but Wu won the election with 58% of the vote to Ameri's 38% in spite of the story.

Let's talk about what exactly should be added back into the paragraphs from the original version. Do you see anything Pete? Davidpdx 08:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that any specific recent edit harmed the article, but merely that an important aspect of the issue is absent. I think PMAnderson's recent edit is an improvement. There's probably room for more improvement, but words are not coming to me right now. I think this quote (from the Hamilton article) illustrates the point I'm trying to make here:

“ The accusation against Wu and Ameri’s response have dominated the debate in the closing stage of what has become one of the hottest congressional races in the country. ”

Typically, late-campaign season advertisements come from the opposing campaign; from the way it was reported, this one was not. This seems like a notable aspect of the issue, and that should be expressed somehow in the article. I'll keep mulling it over and see if I can think of a balanced and concise way to say this. -Pete 19:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

T-Shirt Story

In short, if someone wants to rewrite this I have no problem with it. It may not be noteable enough to stay in the article and if others want to argue to leave it out, I'm ok with that as well. Davidpdx 03:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

More than a single sentence would seem to be undue weight; if someone wants to write that sentence, fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think even a single sentence is notable at this point. If it becomes part of some larger story, such as Wu's overall use of earmarks or his Iraq policy, we can revisit it then. --Esprqii 15:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this should stay. I follow political news pretty closely, and live just outside Wu's district; this issue, to my recollection, is the first one since the Klingon story that attracted broad coverage in newspapers, radio, TV etc.

In my view, every such issue should be incorporated, except in the case of an active, longtime Representative, where that approach might lead to a massive article. So, if there's any "undue weight" issue, I'd say it's more a result of having too FEW issues/votes/positions discussed on the page, not that this one shouldn't be included at all. -Pete 17:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe having it mentioned briefly would be a good idea then. I'm way out of the loop in terms of hearing what's going on in Oregon, so I have no idea how much attention this got. I do agree with Pete that there isn't a whole lot of substance about Wu's votes in the article. Certainly he has enough of a voting record to put plenty of stuff there, it's just that no one has written anything about it. Davidpdx 08:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple more things indicate that it was more than your average "hit piece": Wu did interviews on the issue, and expressed regret. Wu is famous for avoiding publicity; he does not grant interviews, appear on talk radio, etc. very often. I consider this an indication that the story is more significant than many passing stories about public figures. I see that interview was not cited, I can't remember where I saw it, but I will look around. Also, the source cited in this article was a Seattle newspaper: the issue was considered notable (albeit noted in passing) outside of Wu's district and his state. -Pete 19:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Chinese is not an ethnicity

Corrected the term to "Han" which is his ethnicity. Taiwanese is his former nationality and while his heritage can be considered Chinese & Taiwanese. Intranetusa (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Original research

The "Environmental controversy" section was changed by me using text someone tried to insert in the Chevrolet Tahoe page. I was then accused of original research[[2]. Oops. With an edit summary[3] from another also asking for a ref saying it was a controversy. Having looked at the refs again, I think a change of section name was called for. HarryAlffa (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think even that is swinging the POV in the other direction. I'd like to roll this into a new section on the 2010 congressional campaign. But I think we're fast approaching WP:WEIGHT on this POV-heavy non-story. It's worth a mention in the context of the campaign, expected to be more competitive than in past years, but the level of detail is now greater than the rest of his Congressional career (not that that couldn't be beefed up a lot). And almost as much as the Vulcan story! Horrors! --Esprqii (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the comment that "it isn't a campaign controversy:" the article cited states that the attention on Wu is by Republicans who want to take over his seat: not by environmentalists. Therefore, not an environmental controversy. The spokesperson criticizing Wu follows up with an endorsement of his competitor in 2010. Putting in the context of the campaign makes sense. I also removed the quotations, which seem overweighty to me. Let's discuss any other changes here. --Esprqii (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversies and Klingons

I have removed the sections from the biography.

Wikipedia is meant to have undue weight and provide a neutral point of view based on reliable sources. As such, it is not a vessel to point out controversies as targets of approach without context. These "controversies" are non-notable one event stories and cause a shift in balance. Wikipedia is not a place to praise or criticize. If an editor is able to work in reliable, non-partisan sources credible criticism, have at it. Otherwise, this article is pushing a political agenda. Keegan (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. If you haven't done so yet, you should read the entire talk page as many of these issues were discussed at length. In particular, I think the sexual assault story is definitely notable, as it defined one of Wu's campaigns, and still comes up every election cycle. It is well-referenced, and a consensus version was added to the article. The Klingon story is also how many people outside of Oregon became familiar with Wu, such as the Daily Show references. Those two pieces I believe should be returned to the article. I do agree that the numerous one-off controversies should probably come out as their 15 seconds of fame have long since expired. --Esprqii (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The Klingon inclusion I can buy, but there is no way the assault story should be included. It is no matter that it is part of a campaign cycle, Wikipedia isn't for hosting gossip. Can we verify by reliable sources that he was accused? Sure. But he was never convicted, it's just campaign smear tactics to bring to the table every two years. Thus, inclusion of the allegation casts a shadow upon the Congressman's reputation for something he didn't do. Ergo, not neutral point of view. Keegan (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that it's not gossip and that something happened. He apologized for his actions and sought counseling. No charges were filed, as you note, but I think it's more than just smear tactics. I have no axe to grind with the Congressman as a review of all my Wikipedia edits will show. I'm just pointing out that this topic was discussed at length on this talk page and some consensus language was reached. But I'm fine with revisiting it. Let's hear from some other editors. --Esprqii (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Nod. Keegan (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added a new neutral version of the sexual abuse scandal. My post gives a very basic account of the controversy with neutral references including a balanced article from the Society of Professional Journalists. The sexual abuse scandal is about as relevant to any discussion about Wu as the Monica Lewinsky scandal is to a discussion about Bill Clinton, which is to say, definitely relevant. As an Oregonian, I can attest to the fact that if Oregonians know anything about Wu, they know about the sexual abuse scandal. This is not surprising considering that the scandal has defined several of his campaigns, with television ads being run by both sides discussing the issue. The Wikipedia editor who removed this section noted that the sexual abuse was "gossip" about "something [Wu] didn't do", however a thorough look at facts/references show that these allegations have definite legitimacy as evidenced by an apology from Wu himself. (Lenschulwitz (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC))

I have re-added the sexual abuse scandal. Looking over the references and this discussion page, it is clear that there is plenty of evidence to confirm that this event did occur. Furthermore, the fact that it has defined both of Wu's last two campaigns and that most Wikipedia users consider this event to be notable means that further discussion is necessary before deleting. Those who have removed this section of the article without addressing the points raised by other Wikipedia users on this discussion page are committing vandalism.(Lenschulwitz (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC))

Hi Lenschulwitz. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability and notability, not truth. Whether the accusations were leveled is only part of the equation. Also, the notion that "it has defined both of Wu's last two campaigns" is your analysis. Please refrain from crying vandalism when other editors come to a conclusion you don't agree with. I'm going to remove the content -- please don't continue to re-add without some semblance of agreement on this page. Arbor832466 (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Arbor832466. Ok, Verifiability. I don't see anyone claiming this event hasn't been verified (including yourself). If you are claiming that this event has not been verified, please state your reasoning including an explanation as to why the numerous sources (including the Portland Tribune, CNN, The Oregonian, and many others) who verified this story are wrong. Verifiability hinges on this question: did David Wu hold a press conference apologizing for sexual abuse? Yes he did and this press conference has been extremely well documented. As to notability, I don't see anyone claiming this event hasn't been a notable part of Wu's career or life. It has made national news, which is notable in itself. Also, admitting to sexual abuse is certainly notable to a personal bio, is it not? Furthermore, what about the political perspective? It is well documented that his 2004 opponent Goli Ameri used the scandal in many political attack ads as well as distributing a copy of the Oregonian article detailing the abuse to "100,000 households in the 1st Congressional District"Even if the scandal was entirely without merit, these well documented political attacks would be notable to any discussion of Wu's career, just as the "swiftboaters" are notable in any discussion on John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. Ok, so I have provided documentation to verify this event and I have documented how it is notable from both a personal and political standpoint. Finally, a look at this discussion page makes it clear that most Wikipedia users agree that this event is notable. If you disagree, please provide clear reasoning, justifying exactly why this event should not be included in this article. Simply removing this part of the article without providing any reasoning or justification for doing so is properly considered vandalism.(Lenschulwitz (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC))

Having looked over the sourcing its clear to me its massively undue Weight. We have a very respected source that calls the reliability of the story into question. Thus as we do not use Killian documents in George W. Bush Biography we should not use this here. This sound like Sloppy Reporting from a normally RS thus should not be included. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

What specifically is undue? What is the "respected source" that calls this story into question? The article as I wrote it makes three claims: 1)The Oregonian wrote an article in 2004 alleging that Wu had been accused of sexual assault while attending Stanford; 2)No criminal charges were filed against Wu; 3)Wu held a press conference apologizing for "inexcusable behavior". From my point of view, all three of those claims have been extremely well documented. I am seeing a few Wikipedia editors saying that these claims should not be included in the article, however none of these editors are specifying exactly which of these three claims violates Wikipedia's BLP provisions or why. Look at past discussions, a consensus on this issue was previously reached by Wikipedia editors in November of 2007 up until July 2010 when one editor Keegan removed this section incorrectly labeling the topic as "gossip" about something "[Wu] didn't do". (Lenschulwitz (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC))

The very source your using to support you the sentence! Did you Read the source?. And It violate undue weight due to the dopropotional amount of emphissis you edit put on it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)

Ok, I think I'm understanding what you're saying. How about we just cite the original 2004 Oregonian newspaper article? This way there will be no question of undue weight.

Thats not what I am saying this source directly attacks the original Oregonian article making the article highly dubious to use.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia's BLP guidelines? Here is the example given when dealing with public figures like politicians: Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source. Given that this is the paradigm we have to work with, our situation is much easier, considering that our politician, Wu, responded to The Oregonian's allegations with a public apology, not a denial. As this example and Wikipedia's BLP guidelines demonstrate, the fact that The Oregonian article is controversial does not disqualify it from our article. (Lenschulwitz (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC))

Normally I'd Agree with you BUT in this case we have outright criticism by one the most prestigious Journalism associations Criticizing the report. Not Too mentions have Workshops, on how not to do that kind of Journalism. If the source is deemed unreliable then we should not use it even if it from a paper that normally is a RSThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the SPJ post says anything that makes the Oregonian article unreliable. They were setting up an ethics workshop and used the Wu case as an example for discussion on whether or not it was appropriate. The post—which, as an opinion piece anyway is not a reliable source—does not come to any particular conclusion that the Oregonian article was unethical or unreliable. I believe the sensational "sexual abuse" heading is inappropriate, but the information should be restored under a heading of "Controversy" as mentioned below and as it was for many months. Hopefully everyone here has read all the previous discussion and consensus on this topic. --Esprqii (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for opinions at WP:BLPN#David Wu. Johnuniq (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

References

Undue

The undue material (currently removed) is shown in this diff. The source[4] says: in 1976 Wu's then girlfriend broke up with him; later, Wu was questioned by Stanford campus police after the ex-girlfriend said he tried to force her to have sex with him; no action was taken; no formal complaint was laid; the woman declined to make a further comment. Something that happened 34 years ago (with no formal complaint let alone a finding) is dubious within a biography, but what rules the edit out as unacceptable is the level-3 heading Allegations of Sexual Abuse, followed by text referring to "2004": the reader would need to study the fine print to determine that 2004 was when a story was published concerning an old and unsubstantiated event. An inflammatory heading would be great on a blog seeking to discredit an opponent, but should not be employed at Wikipedia. Further, we do not pretend that adding the word "allegation" permits any claim because we are smart enough to recognize the effect of such a claim. A highly reworded version of the material may be suitable after a reliable and independent source writes an analysis of the 1976 incident pointing out its ongoing significance (and not just the fact that politicians have dirt dug up). Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Allegations of Sexual Abuse heading should be removed and restored with the original Controversy heading that has been included in this article since November 2007. Furthermore, we are in agreement that the 1976 incident itself should not be discussed in the body of the article. However, the 2004 report by The Oregonian and the subsequent press conference in which Wu apologized are extremely well documented and are of definite significance to Wu's political career (also documented). Hence, these sections should naturally remain in the Wikipedia article. To remove any questions of undue weight, I think we should cite the original 2004 Oregonian article in place of the SPJ source.(Lenschulwitz (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC))

I think we have some sort of miscommunication here, are you suggesting that simply switching sources will make it due weight?The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm suggesting we structure this article using the BLP guidelines I quoted previously. Please see Esprqii's post.(Lenschulwitz (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC))

The WP:BLP procedures have been tightened in the last year or so, and vague references to previous comments is not sufficient to justify the addition of negative (or positive) material. Please engage with the points raised in the current discussion, or drop the matter. The only controversy concerns the unsurprising fact that every politician is periodically smeared with as much mud as possible; it is not Wikipedia's role to echo inconsequential incidents. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My comment was in response to ResidentAnthropologist. If you scroll up, you'll see that in parallel to your discussion, he has started an entirely different discussion. His question is redundant and has already been addressed above by both Lenschulwitz and Esprqii on October 19th. I'm not sure why ResidentAnthropologist started a separate conversation. I agree, it is confusing, but hopefully things should be clear now? If you need any more help understanding, please let me know. Now, as for keeping on topic, did you get the chance to read my response (posted: 2:40, October 19th) to your prior post? I think we may have found a good compromise and I'm interested to hear your suggestions. (Lenschulwitz (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC))

Of course I saw your earlier comment, and my remark stands. I acknowledge that you have withdrawn your attempt to add the sensationalist heading that you inserted into the article six times, but you now say that the 1976 incident is not warranted for the article, but the smearing by Wu's opponents who raise the issue is. However, it is not Wikipedia's role to echo the gossip of daily political life by adding a "Controversy" section. The matter may have encyclopedic value after a significant source has written an analysis of the event, and not just a "have you heard?" space filler. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia's BLP guidelines? Here is the example given when dealing with public figures like politicians: Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source. Given that this is the paradigm we have to work with, our situation is much easier, considering that our politician, Wu, responded to The Oregonian's allegations with a public apology, not a denial. As this example and Wikipedia's BLP guidelines demonstrate, the fact that The Oregonian article is controversial does not disqualify it from our article. Also, I'm curious, have you read the prior discussions and consensus that were reached on this issue by other Wikipedia editors? (Lenschulwitz (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC))

Your extract from the WP:BLP policy (not guideline) is talking about notable events. In the case of Wu, it would be possible to argue that the mud-digging that occurs around election time is notable, but the actual event is not WP:DUE. On the other hand, if Wu loses an election and a source does an analysis saying that the 1976 incident was a factor, it would be essential to include that in the article. Re your question regarding an alleged consensus, you may ponder why four different editors reverted your attempts to add the section. If you want to take this further, you need to propose some neutral text, with sources. Johnuniq (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement that the article and allegations are notable, but that a specific description of the incident is not. As far as your desire to have an "analysis", I couldn't find this requirement in Wikipedia's guidelines or policies, is this merely a personal editing preference? Regardless, I think you'll be happy to learn that the Wikipedia article already contains a sourced analysis acknowledging the Oregonian article as having a substantial effect on Wu's 2004 election victory. In Wu Cruises to 4th Term in Bitter Race, the chairman of Lewis and Clark College's political science department, Roger Eisinger, attributes David Wu's 2004 election win to his opponent's decision to focus on the Oregonian's sexual abuse article. According to Eisinger, Wu's opponent's strategy "backfired" because "the public was never certain about what exactly happened in that Stanford dorm room". Given the presence of this analysis, I'll take you at your word that this topic is "essential to include" in the Wikipedia article. Also, please note that the consensus to include this topic was reached on this discussion board by other Wikipedia editors in November, 2007. (Lenschulwitz (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC))

Article protected for one week

Note The article has been protected for one week due to the BLP issues and the repeated edits against consensus by Lenschulwitz. If there is consensus prior to that point, or if Lenschulwitz can agree to cease and desist restoring the disputed material, please let me know so that protection can be removed. Otherwise, it seems appropriate that we should allow the article to remain stable while the matter is discussed here and at the BLP board. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll stop. I still think my article submission is perfectly in the right and meets Wikipedia's BLP guidelines. Furthermore, all of the challenges to my addition have been unsubstantiated or nonspecific. However, due to my ignorance of the Wikipedia editing process, I have apparently violated some procedural rules, so I'll back off. (Lenschulwitz (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC))

Page restored to semi-protection per the above statement. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Reaching a consensus on sexual allegations story

I've restored the sexual allegations story, drawing from the suggestions of other Wikipedia editors and Wikipedia's policy page. Additions include: restoring the heading to "Controversy", sourcing the original 2004 Oregonian article in place of the SPJ opinion piece, and including an analysis piece that ties the sexual allegations to the success of Wu's 2004 congressional campaign. I make these changes noting that those Wikipedia editors who contributed to making these additions have not posted any further discussion for more than a week. (Lenschulwitz (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC))

I think it's fine. My only concern is WP:UNDUE, but that is more a shortcoming of the sparse article more than the length of this section. When the article is eventually expanded to its fullest potential to include Wu's entire career, good and bad, this item will, and should remain, a part of the whole picture. --Esprqii (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

July 2011 sexual misconduct allegations

I removed the following text because it was unsubstantiated. The poster did not provide any reference for the content. I searched the Register-Guard website (7/24/2011 5:00 AM EST) and did not find any articles that referred to this information. If the poster, or anyone else, can find a supporting source, they are welcome to re-post the content.

Following text removed:

"In a wide ranging interview with the Eugene Register Guard Newspaper the female sex partner of David Wu admitted being under the influence of intoxicants and feeling bad about the sexual experience after waking up the next morning. However, she stated that she never told Congressman Wu that she didn't want to have sex with him." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juneblender (talk • contribs) 09:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but while polite, next time there is no need to raise the issue on the talk page. Particularly in a WP:BLP, any unsourced and dubious material should be removed (and your edit summary of "unsourced" was perfect). Putting dubious material on the talk page is not always desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 11:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Request to remove tag that lists him in the "OR-FedRep" template.

He still shows up in that info box. Whatever code needs to be removed to remove him from it should be done. -- Anonymous user from 174.47.84.203 (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done You're right, that should've been done a month ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Omission from the article

So, can anyone provide a list of his accomplishments? After 12 years as a Congressman, one would think this would be an important part of his biography, & providing a list would not violate NPOV or violate any of those rules surrounding "BLP concerns" -- whatever those are. -- llywrch (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Refs on this talk page invalid

Following the two links at the foot of this talk page leads one to a login page for Oregon's Multnomah County Library system, and can therefore hardly be said to carry weight. I wasn't able to locate the text referring to these links, sorry. Steve Holden (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added a template to put the refs in the section where they belong above. I'm not sure if it's important that there are deadlinks in a 4-year-old talk page discussion. I'm sure someone with library access could find the text if you still need it. Valfontis (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David Wu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150907063455/http://www.nationaljournal.com/pubs/almanac/2008/people/or/rep_or01.htm to http://www.nationaljournal.com/pubs/almanac/2008/people/or/rep_or01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Wu. 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/20110904045600/http://www.apaics.org/index.php/resources/representative_profile/David_Wu_OR to http://www.apaics.org/index.php/resources/representative_profile/David_Wu_OR
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060318034106/http://www.asianweek.com/071599/feature_davidwu.html to http://www.asianweek.com/071599/feature_davidwu.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Wu. 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/20070929092234/http://www.wweek.com/html/politics081199.html to http://www.wweek.com/html/politics081199.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Article seems to ignore mental illness issues of David Wu.

See the following article for an example: https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/02/rep_david_wus_staff_confronted.html Google '"David Wu" Oregon mental' for many pages of cites. Is somebody trying to protect David Wu's reputation? Or protect the reputation of people who supported him? 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:F46F:5251:6657:A11 (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

This is an obvious omission. The Oregonian reported that shortly after his re-election in 2010, practically all of his staff quit. While Willamette Week also reported on his bizarre behavior, I can't find the article I remember reading. This apparently was an open secret, as reported in another Oregonian article. While The Oregonian has a Republican bias, & thus had an axe to grind, I was struck while trying to find relevant articles on his bizarre behavior just how many articles there were about that photo of Wu wearing a tiger costume; one might say that image defined him for millions of people, & thus could be justified for inclusion. -- llywrch (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)