Talk:David Wu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the David Wu article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Oregon Portal
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon.
To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week.
Start This page is rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article is rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

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

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. "Allegation of assault on woman in 1970s shadows Wu", The Oregonian, October 12, 2004. Retrieved on 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. "Ameri pummels Wu over incident", Portland Tribune, October 22, 2004. Retrieved on 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. "$4.5 million for a boat that nobody wanted", Seattle Times, October 14, 2007. Retrieved on 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)