Talk:Neil Goldschmidt/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] General Questions

Moved from the article (good questions, but the article body's not where they should be asked):

• "Has he committed other sexual crimes against children?"
• " Who were the people who assisted in the Rape cover-up?"

-- llywrch 16:33, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Removed statuory rape category because he was never convicted. Plus the category states that it is for those who had teacher/student relationships. Davidpdx 12:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add the statutory rape category again. While he did admit to the crime, he was never convicted. If you persist, I will ask a adminstrator to semi-protect this page. Davidpdx 09:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

A conviction counts but not a confession? Seems clear to me that a volentary confession is more solid a fact than a conviction. What is your reasoning that a confession (reported in a reputable source) isn't good enough to qualify him for the statutory rape category? The category should be re-added or renamed. Furthermore, statutory rape is a generous lable. She was a babysitter for his children, she wasn't old enough or stable enough for it to be a consenting relationship. Goldschmidt didn't didn't have a momentary lapse of control, he groomed her for the role and then preyed upon her for a long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.186.100 (talk • contribs) 08:17, April 4, 2006

Yes, he did admit to the crime and it was wrong. No one is doubting that. In no way am I defending what Goldschmidt did. However, letting someone's opinion cloud an article by adding things that are bias ruins Wikipedia. The category means "convicted" not confessed.Davidpdx 19:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I really don't think that Goldschmidt fits in that category at all. --Liface 21:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And why is that, He is most certianly a statutory rapist and admitis it. The only reason I see not to add this category is because of its description (...teachers and students...) But that's a problem with the category that should be fixed too. 24.21.186.100 06:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Statutory rape is a crime you must be convicted of to but added to that category. As I said previously, what he did is definately wrong. Which is why there is a rather long part of the article dedicated to the subject. You are stating that the category should be changed so that it fits your description of Goldschimdt. My point is, if you do that everytime for every person you feel should "fit" into a category that will cause some problems. The other concern is that the article needs to be NPOV as much as possible. Considering it is mentioned (actually quite extensively) in the article, it is best to leave the conclusion up to each individual reader rather the forcing one person's opinion. Davidpdx 06:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If I murdered someone and admitted it you wouldn't consider me a murder without a conviction? Come on, don't be an ass. No, I'm not (saying the category should be renamed to fig Goldschmidt), you either didn't read and understand my argument or you are being intellectually dishonest. To repeat, I said that if the category is restricted as noted above (to teachers and students) then it should be renamed to reflect that. Then a new statutory rape category could be created for statutory rapists. Alternatively, a restriction placed on a category that doesn't match its description should be removed. If the category of baseball players was restricted to left handers don't you think it would be idiotic? Such is the case with restricting statutory rapists to students and teachers. I think it is very important (academically) to understand how a venal person like Goldschmidt can be so sucessful. The knowledge of his statutory rape was widely known for decades and was, according to former subordinates, only the tip of the iceberg. Meanwhile, other people making transgressions orders of magnitude less suffered consequences orders of magnitude worse. This point alone is fascinating and deserves some attention. Considering that his repeated statutory rapes over a long period of time play a central role in his career and life, the category should be re-added. 24.21.186.100 05:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The only bias here is your attempt at supressing an appropriate category. It's OK to cover the material in the artice but not use a category that fits? I think you bias is showing, removing this category is a whitewash. 24.21.186.100 05:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

First, note that the statutory rape category got moved (I believe it was renamed for clarification) to Category:Statutory rapists. Second, there has been an ongoing discussion on the Category talk:Convicted child sex offenders page relating to this subject. I was part of the discussion at one point, but lost track of it (due to time constraints). In that conversation there were some things brought up that are something worth thinking about. In a discussion about rape categories Jimbo Wales, the creator of Wikipedia stated [1]:

It also might be a good idea for you to look at the conversation that took place on the Category talk:Convicted child sex offenders page here: Category_talk:Convicted_child_sex_offenders#Public_Service_Message. Also note, that such disputes have been taken before arbitration, mainly Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu which looks at dealing with articles listing people as child rapists. One of the tenents of that decision was Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#Final_decision. I would encourage you to look at these listings in terms of precendants set by them which are from Jim Wales and the Arbitration Commitee. These urge caution against doing what you are advocating. Davidpdx 08:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the thoughtfull response. I agree with your earlier response (a while back) that the topic is well covered in the article. What really buggs me is the lack of logic in this debate. For example, you quote above The lynch mob mentality is worse than failing to have some criminals listed. Calling someone a 'criminal' is a contentious matter which ought to be done only very carefully, cautiously, and conservatively. As far as calling him a criminal, we aren't the ones that opened that door, WW did, and Goldschmith confirmed it himself. So I don't see were the contention is. Anyway, I still believe it is an appropriate category to use but accept that I'm outnumbered here. 24.21.186.100 02:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Wales was saying it's better to be safe then sorry in terms of causing a backlash against Wikipedia. The encyclopedia was not started to cause a controversy, but to inform people. In terms of what happens on Wikipedia, Jimbo pretty much has the last say. Yes, WW did open the door as did Dwight James (of the Portland Tribune) and Vicki Walker. As you may have noticed I put quite a bit of that back story into the article because it gives the reader a good look at how the allegations became public after so many years. Part of the reason for including that in this article and the Vicki Walker article is tied to Walker's now aborted campaign for governor. One also I think has to take into account that the allegations (you can't really call them charges since he was never charged with a crime) are over 25 years old. I think they still merit mentioning in the article, but to try to put him in a narrow category (other then possibly sex offenders) is difficult to do. The amount of time does have a lot of bearring on the situation as well as whether the victum speaks out. I don't think the victum was identified (it actually sounds like she was paid off). Anyway, I think the article does have a pretty good balance at this point. Davidpdx 04:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article status

I'm listing this article as "Start" class, changing it from "B." I think there are too many things missing to warrant a "B" rating, and I'll summarize as best I can:

• Goldschmidt was regarded as the state's most influential politician/power broker for several decades, with both populist appeal and ties to big business. The reasons for this are not explored very thoroughly in the article.
• His time as Transportation Secretary is not discussed, nor the notable aspects of his time as governor.
• His initiative to extend the Park Blocks is not discussed, nor any of his attempts to shape Portland after his exit from elected politics.
• His relationships with other notable Portland and Oregon figures is not discussed.
• There is no "electoral history" section at the end.

I'm no expert on Goldschmidt, but my sense is that his influence on Oregon ties in with the subject matter of many other Wikipedia articles, and that should be drawn out better. I hope others will chime in, as I'm sure my list is incomplete. -Pete 00:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statutory Rape Category Redux

As happens so often on Wikipedia sometimes the same concerns come up multiple times. In this case I believe the system worked well and the person checked the talk page, which most people don't bother to do.

Since the topic is come up again, I thought I'd again voice my concern about using this category for this particular person. First, let me state I don't have an opinion one way or another except for the fact that I am a resident of Oregon (though at the time he served I was not voting age) and do remember some things regarding him being Governor of Oregon.

My concern is that the category (as of the last time I looked) specified someone who was convicted. I believe that we have to becareful assuming admitting to a crime is defacto conviction, when it clearly isn't. There's no doubt that Goldschmidt's reputation has been severly tarnished by the admission of what he did. However, I think in terms of categorizing it the statutory rape category doesn't work well. Davidpdx 21:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goldschmidt's influence

JobsElihu, I think it's important that the introduction to the article give some sense of the massive influence Goldshmidt had in Oregon politics over multiple decades. You may be right that a direct quote from WW is not the best way to do it, but is there another way to phrase it that you think would be more appropriate? Stories from WW, the Tribune, the Oregonian, the Statesman Journal etc. all attest that he was the most influential political figure in the state. It's a fact that the opinion is widespread, and worthy of prominent inclusion in the article. -Pete 03:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree that Goldschmidt's influence, at one time, was massive. Even the reporter that was quoted, however, admits that Goldschmidt's current influence is weak. Why don't we just leave it as using the citation for the support, but rewrite the intro so that it doesn't look like Wikipedia is doing cartwheels in support of the admitted child molestor. The sentence could be simple in that it states, "Goldschimidt, at one time, was highly influential in Oregon politics and business." That may not be perfect, but it is a starting place. Please feel free to work on it. The quote that we had in the intro was really over the top, though.--JobsElihu 16:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said that his influence wasn't shot to hell after the crime was revealed. Early '70s plus three decades equals early 2000s. Still, the impact of his influence is still felt; consider that both Saxton nor Kulongoski have ties to Goldschidt, which effectively prevented each from using the issue against the other in the 2006 election, and also the current allegations against Bernie Giusto. Also, claiming that he was extremely influential is not a value judgment, and it's not "doing cartwheels." Martin Luther King and Mother Theresa were influential, so were Adolph Hitler and Joe McCarthy. "Highly influential" fails to capture the sway that Goldschmidt had over policy decisions in Oregon for an extended period. -Pete 20:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I invite you to re-write my sentence, so we can discuss that. The WW author is a good writer, but this one sentence just seems, out of context that it is, to be too praiseworthy of GS. Let's work on a creating a sentence with which we both can live. We both agree that he had huge influence, then the scandal broke, years after the molestation, then his personal influence wained considerably, yet at the same time, many of his former politican/businessmen friends are still highly influential. I look forward to your re-work of my sentence. I pointed out before that my sentence was not perfect. And maybe one sentence is not enough to convey the rise and fall of GS.--JobsElihu 21:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

How about this: "For the next three decades, Goldschmidt was widely considered the most influential figure in Oregon politics, both in his capacity as an elected public official and as a private lobbyist and policy consultant." (Please note that this is intended to "pair" with the following sentence, which clearly indicates that his reputation took a hit from the revelation of the statutury rape and coverup.) Also, the intro needs to cover the big points, but not back them up fully -- I think it's fine if nuances are left to the sections below. Agreed? -Pete 03:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I would add that sentence if I had written it. Please do and thanks.--JobsElihu 03:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Great, I will. I hope you'll keep working on the article, too -- it could definitely benefit from your critical eye. Sorry if I was a little snappy in our first encounter. -Pete 03:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goldschmidt's rape of a 14 year old child

I expanded the statement at the intro of the article about his admitted rape of a 14 year old girl. The information is accurate according to Goldschmidt and can be verified in W-Week or oregonlive.com. This rape is significant to the sunset of his career, therefore I felt expansion was needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.129.39 (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edits have been reverted a few times (not by me) and it seems like this is something that should be discussed further to prevent the article from becoming too bias in one direction. I'd encourage you to discuss it here on the page. While I personally am not as involved in Wikipedia as I once was, I can try to drop by and contribute if time allows. Davidpdx 12:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, let's discuss. THe article should be clear that what occurred was unlawful rape of a child, and NOT just an "affair" as intro of the article previously stated. Calling it just an "affair" in the intro cannot stand because it represents a POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.129.39 (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted a couple times, but let me clarify: I'm not opposed to making changes to the article. I generally don't like the recent changes by the anonymous editor, more on the grounds of quality of writing/flow of the article than anything else. I'm going to leave the current version for the time being, in the hopes that more editors will take a crack at wordsmithing the article. -Pete 16:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really satisifed with the language either. An editor recently reverted with a summary of: "one of the most ridiculous edits i've ever seen. stop trying to push POV on wikipedia". I think calling the rape of a 14 year old girl by a powerful politician an affair is just as POV and ridiculous. Cacophony 21:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It was not rape. Rape is forced (physically) sexual relations. This was statutory rape, a distinct crime with a different set of elements, and basically no defenses. Element one, victim under a certain age, element two, was there sexual contact, yes and yes=guilty (unless married). Thus under Oregon law apparently (if the article is correct) it was third degree sexual assualt. So, "rape" would violate WP:BLP so it needs to be a term other than rape by itself. I've been thinking something aong the lines of: In XXXX, Goldschmidt admited to illegal sexual contact/intercourse with a 14-year-old girl that sharply reduced his political clout.

As to the reversions, I did one. It had nothing to do with the wording. Anon IP, if you read the edit summaries you would know why it was reverted. In the future, please read those summaries under the "history" tab so you can save us some time. In my summary I refered to WP:LEAD with a handy link just for you. But to summarize, the beginnning of an article is what we call a lead, it is usually few paragraphs at the beginning of the article that is a brief summary of the topic. In that area we generalize and give a brief summary of the topic, with details later. For instance a sentence or two on being mayor, a sentence or two on being governor, etc. Then later after this brief summary we give the details in the body of the article. Writing as much about the sexual misconduct in the lead violates undue weight. Trust me, as someone who is not a Democrat, I have no love for him, but we have guidelines and policies we must all follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboutmovies (talk • contribs) 23:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding whether or not it was rape, it most certainly was. Check the Oregon Revised Statutes and you will see that it was rape in the 3rd degree. Further in Oregon, a 14 YO cannot give consent for sex with an adult. The ORS clearly calls it rape, so why can't we call it rape here. Do you have a problem with the word "rape" itself? The law calls it rape, so why can't we be accurate in what we call it? And so far as the intro goes, I don't disagree, so I changed things in my latest edit, but someone deleted it too --- along with the rest of my edits. I don't understand why ALL of my edits were changed. I will try it again with the guidelines that aboutmovies listed. please don't change without discussion. thanks!!!!! 71.111.129.39 00:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

AM, I agree with you that we have to be careful in the wording. I also agree that the crime (which he was not convicted of due to the statue of limitations expiring) would have been statutory rape since she was 14. I think any mention of the scandle should be minimized in the lead portion so it doesn't violate the WP:LEAD rule. There is enough information in this article (including sources) for someone to get a good idea what happened and make their own conclusion. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, rape is "1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse. 2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction. 3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice. [2]. The other point I want to make is that what happened can be both statutory rape and an affair (Goldschmidt was married) so the two are not mutually exclusive. Whether Goldschmidt cheated on his wife with a 14 year old or a 60 year old, he still had an affair. I understand that you think using the work affair is minimizing the situation, but wanted to point out that it was indeed an affair whether his actions were legal or not. I think the anon IP needs to clearly state what changes he/she wants. I also think for now, the anon IP needs to hold off editing the article until some things are agreed upon and we make sure whatever wording is used doesn't violate WP rules. Davidpdx 01:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm frankly not happy that you have jumped to make the edits without having them worked out on the talk page. While I won't revert them, I honestly won't condone it if someone else does. I think you also need to be more patient with editing in these situations and be willing to talk out points that are in contention. In terms of changing your edits without discussion, frankly that's not how Wikipedia works. Since the edits are contentious, the really need to be discussed BEFORE the changes are made. Davidpdx 01:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, but rather than a general statement, please be specific about which additions to the main article you don't like, and the specific reasoning, and suggested alterations. Hopefully we can work togther rather than resorting to general statements.71.111.129.39 02:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oregon law may call it rape now, but it did not at the time. The law as of 1971, which was not changed until 1981 (thus the period of the crime) was (O.R.S. § 163.375):

• 1: A person who has sexual intercourse with another person commits the crime of rape in the first degree if:
• a: victim is subjected to forcible compulsion by the person;
• b: victim is under 12 years of age;
• c: victim is under 16 years of age and is the person's sibling, of the whole or half blood, the person's child or the person's spouse's child; or
• d: victim is incapable of consent by reason of mental defect, mental incapacitation or physical helplessness.

So unless the former honor student was mentally defective, as a 14 year old it was legally not rape. Which I see in the article it was changed at some point to someone useing the current law whereas before I could have swore it was something to the effect of: at the time it consituted 3rd degree sexual assualt. See, due to the Constitution (see Ex post facto law) we can't really change the lawfor crimes already committed (in general).

On a second note, dictionaries usually go with rape as forced, thus the term statutory rape. Oregon is free to define its legal defintions, as it has also defined a blow job as "Deviate sexual intercourse” (no longer good law). But it cannot red-define what the law once was. If Oregon wanted to it could define fraud as "exceeding the posted speed limit by greater than 10 miles per hour in a posted construction zone, but that's only a legal definition and not what the rest of the world would define it as. Aboutmovies 03:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

David, I have no problem with the affair part, I don't know who removed that. I just have a problem with the anonIP and calling in "rape" as that is not accurate. AnonIP, a 14 yo could give consent to her husband. 14 and even younger can get married in some states, and Oregon would have to honor that marraige, see the privelages and immunities portion of the U.S. Constitution. Aboutmovies 03:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you only quote part of the law regarding rape. Note the 1971 reference. 163.355 Rape in the third degree. (1) A person commits the crime of rape in the third degree if the person has sexual intercourse with another person under 16 years of age. (2) Rape in the third degree is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §109; 1991 c.628 §1] 71.111.129.39 04:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, that’s third degree, which is statutory rape. Notice you won’t find a Wikilink to Rape in the third degree, or find a definition for “Rape in the third degree” in a dictionary. What I’m saying is unless it is 1st degree rape, you can’t call it just rape. It has to be statutory rape, or if you want to say it every time, you can call it “third degree rape”. I know this is splitting hairs, but that’s what the legislature did when they broke it down into three degrees (same thing with murder). They realized that not all rape is the same, some is less egregious than others and thus lesser degrees get lesser penalties. If you call it just rape, then the dictionary meaning is going to attach, which under that definition this was not rape. Aboutmovies 06:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Argue about technicalities all you want but we know in our hearts that it's completely unfair to classify this situation with a single word. --Liface 10:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Just another note, everyone needs to keep in mind Goldschmidt was never convicted of a crime (no matter whether you want to call it rape or statutory rape) because of the lapse of the statute of limitations. Yes, he did admit to it and yes it was a damn sick thing to do, but we do need to keep that in mind. Also saying illegal when referring to something that is a crime is unduly repeatitive. If I said illegal bank robbery, doesn't that sound a bit stupid?

Frankly I've changed my mind and am not comfortable with several of the edits that were made and have reverted the whole lot of them. I think it's possible to come to a compromise, but to do that we need to work out the differences before the edits are made. Davidpdx 13:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, please take each of my edits one by one and feel free to discuss. BTW, I removed the word "rape" where it stood alone without at least the words "Third Degree" in front of it. I don't necessarily agree with this, but that's a compromise I was willing to make. This should make those who were concerned about the word "rape" without the qualifier much happier. In a few places, the term "relationship" was replaced with "illegal relationship" which is more accurate. Perhaps "illegal sexual relationship" might be more precise. comments? 71.111.129.39 14:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The most recent edits are a bit of an improvement over earlier attempts. I agreee with David, however, that repeating the fact that it's illegal over and over is redundant, and is frankly an insult to the reader's intelligence. The Oregonian was in error to characterize the activity an "affair," but that's because -- I believe -- it was the only way they referred to it in several articles. It's not a problem to refer to it as an "affair" or a "molestation" or a "relationship" if it's been previously made clear that it was a crime. David also makes a good point, that you (the anonymous editor) are not helping your case any by continuing to make changes during an active discussion. Things work best here when they are discussed ahead of time. You're trying everyone's patience. -Pete 18:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

So, I assume that you have nothing specific in my edits to the main article which are problematic for you at this time?? That's good because I did try to edit things such that it would please everyone, while still maintaining accuracy. 71.111.129.39 22:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. Out of respect for the Wikipedia community and civil discourse, I do not always jump to reverting. If you take that as a sign that I endorse your edits, that's your mistake. -Pete 22:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to second Pete's comments. Anon IP, you need to discuss the edits BEFORE you make them, not after. I've made that clear multiple times. Because of your last commment, which clearly was meant to give the appearence of consensus, when their clearly is not, I have once again reverted your edits. I will continue to do so until you follow the rules and do as requested by discussing the edits beforehand.

If you continue to revert, then you'll force us to take other actions which aren't as polite as we are being at this point.Davidpdx 01:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

strange, it seems that you are reverting my edits without any discussion as to which specific words or statements you take issue with. Please discuss specific words or phrases on a word-for-word basis. I welcome the discussion, but nobody appears willing to do anything but say things like "You need to discuss first, I'm going to revert." The exception is the person who took issue with the word "rape" without clarifiers in front of it. Although it clearly was "rape" as defined under ORS, I nonetheless changed the "rape" wording, so obviously I'm willing to work it out. Unless you are willing to discuss, you are committing vandalism of my work. thanks71.111.129.39 18:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

So far as the anon IP, using whois etc., you have more info about me than I have of you. It's not like you are using your complete real names here. 71.111.129.39 18:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

71: Discussion is rather pointless when you continue to misrepresent the things others are saying. Nobody has said you can't, or shouldn't, remain as anonymous as you like. -Pete 21:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said that anyone said that I "can't or shouldn't remain anonymous." Please show me where I did. I simply made a comment that I find the IP address to contain useful information. Saying that I "continue to misrepresent the things others are saying" sounds like an attack. This is something which is against wikipedia policy.

So far as my edits go, again I ask that people take each of my edits and make suggestions one be one. So far, nobody seems willing to entertain specific discussions. Again, I encourage all who are reading this page to participate. 71.111.129.39 23:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Anon, first with the "vandalism of your work" see WP:OWN as to why that don't fly. As to info about us and you and anon, you seemed to have lost Pete and myself. You seem to think people care about who you are when you say "you have more info about me than I have of you" since I have as much info about you as you of me. I've never bothered to look where your IP address is coming from, because it doesn't matter. I don't have a problem with you being an anon IP editor. I do have, and judging from the comments from everyone else, a problem with you edits. If you want to try and have an edit war, that will only lead to semi-protection of the page, not to mention it appears three editors here are willing to revert your edits until there is a proper discussion, which means you will likely break the three revert rule. I emplore you to listen to us, we are the Wikipedia community. Your actions are not WP:CONSENSUS and when you say "please don't change without discussion" it comes across as disengenious as that is exactly what you have done, changed to begin with w/o discussion. And now that we have said this needs to be discussed you keep trying to re-insert your opinion (please don't claim that you are only inserting the truth). Lastly, keep in mind that this is the biography of a living person and has special considerations due to legal liability, liability that fall son the individual editor who makes the statements and not on the foundation. As to specific edits, read WP:NPOV and you may come to understand why we have issues with your edits and the broadness of the complaints. Aboutmovies 23:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again please tell me which of my specific edits does everyone take issue with? the most recent statement is saying that I'll lose some type of edit war. It seems to me that nobody has taken my edits one by one and discussed them in any specific manner. I already said I'm willing to discuss, but so far, I hear about how 3 people are willing to revert my edits. What gives? (the exception is the guy who discussed the word "rape" with me -- that was a fruitful discussion.) A false claim that I " misrepresent the things others are saying" isn't helpful. People have requested discussion, so please discuss. 71.111.129.39 00:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Still awaiting comments before I revert back to my edits. 71.111.129.39 03:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My advice is lay out the changes on the talk page. There are several things being discussed below, such as changing the section header and also changing the wording in some places. You can layout your changes several different ways, but I can suggest one way. Start a new section heading. Then take each change and number them, after that list the way it is now and the proposed change. If you do something like that it makes it easy to talk about. Again you can do it differently, but (at least in my mind) that's the most organized way to do it. Davidpdx 04:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

DavidPDX said: "If you continue to revert, then you'll force us to take other actions which aren't as polite as we are being at this point."

May I suggest that you don't threaten me again. What you said is a direct threat, which is against the TOS. I'm new here and not sure how to report a threat, otherwise I surely would. I'm going to edit the main article. I've given plenty of opportunity for discussion. Several have obviously seen my edits so no need to repeat them here. If you wish to discuss, then fine, but please stop the threats.

Aboutmovies said: "(please don't claim that you are only inserting the truth)" Are you suggesting that I have posted something which is not truthful? Just asking because it's difficult to know with a few words from a keyboard.

And Pete, again I ask, where did I "misrepresent the things others are saying" as you stated? 71.111.129.39 01:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not being "threatened" with anything that isn't normal when someone is disrupting Wikipedia. "Other actions" include reporting you if you commit three reversions in a 24-hour period, as I mentioned on your talk page, asking for a request for comment, reporting the incident to the administrator's noticeboard, etc. If you feel the need to report anyone here, please read up at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, and I'd say go for it, though it's understood in the TOS that "threat" means legal threats and threats of bodily harm and the like, not threats of action on Wikipedia. If anyone in this discussion had other actions besides the ones listed in mind, please add them. Thanks. Katr67 02:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Anon, with the quote I simply asked you to not do something that is vert typical when Wikipedia editors are informed about NPOV, by saying they are only adding the truth. So what I said, was with your edits and the comments being made here on this talk page regarding your edits, that I hope you don't try to justify those edits by claiming that you are just inserting the truth. If I thought you were lying about something, I would have said so. The point is, truth is a matter of perspective. I know that sounds weird, but trust me on this. If this wasn't the case there would be no need for Wikipedia's policy of Neutral point of view since the truth would theoritcally be neutral. The other problem is that it isn't so much the factual "what did Goldy do" but how it is presented. Again, the NPOV is a policy, which Wikipedia has very few policies. And when ~90% of an editor's edits are on a single article, and those edits tend to be pushing a singular point of view (Goldscmidt is a very bad man/criminal/rapist/son of the devil), that is not a neutral point of view and not what Wikipedia is for. Does the crime need to be included? Yes, nobody has said differently, and it was here long before you came around. However we are all bound by NPOV and WP:UNDUE and though this crime was horrendous, stupid, and a big news story, it has to be in the perspective of a person who served in the Cabinet, was governor, mayor, and a major political clout person for 30+ years. Seriously, take a look at Richard Nixon and see how much Watergate info is there. If you do, you will notice that it does not dominate the article. Again, Goldschmidt did a bad thing, but overtime (please note this is an encyclopedia and not a tabloid) the crime will have less of an impact on the view of Goldschmidt. Look through history and see how many politicians have had serious problems such as this and you will see how the scandal gets some coverage, but it doesn't dominate, and overtime diminshes. When an editor constantly brings up crime, crime, crime, illegal, illegal, illegal there is a reason, and I don't think it is because that editor is trying to remind the reader. The reader after two senteces isn't suddenly going to go, "oh crap I forgot this was a crime thanks for reminding me after two sentences I'm a total dumbass." So if you are trying to remind the reader, no need to. If you have some other point, let us know what it is. Since writing the article in a manner where the topic "overwhelm(s)" the reader would violate Biographies of living persons, again another policy. So with those policy points in mind, what changes to the article are you looking for? Aboutmovies 03:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take one last crack at addressing you directly, 71. Ordinarily, I try not to speak for others, but in this case, I have a great deal of experience collaborating with David, Katr, and Aboutmovies. (I'm sure they'll correct me if what I say is inaccurate.)

Everyone here has dealt with more contentious issues than this one, and has done so with some grace and diplomacy. Nobody is angry with you, or even particularly concerned with who you are or what you're trying to accomplish. Our goal is to create an excellent encyclopedia. Nobody is making threats, merely making a good faith effort to inform you of what might transpire if your behavior doesn't change. The actions Katr described above would not be punitive in nature, but simply the best course of action for maintaining stability and neutrality on this encyclopedia article. Frankly, she did miss one option, which is probably the most appropriate, given your lack of interest in creating an account: semi-protection of the article would not have any direct impact on you, but would prevent anyone not holding an account from editing the article for some period of time.

You happen to be choosing a confrontation with no fewer than four of the most prolific editors of Oregon-related articles. If you do not find a way to embrace a more productive exchange of ideas -- and I believe all four of us have made an effort to engage you in that way -- you will find yourself wasting a lot of time. Yours and ours, but mostly yours.

Proceed however you like. It's my hope that you will choose the way that best employs your knowledge and expertise. -Pete 04:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I think we are wasting our breath at this point. I certainly didn't mean it as a threat and maybe I should have been more specific in explaining what the consequences of someone's actions on Wikipedia are in terms what can be done if they continue reverting. I also felt with my last post above, I was holding out an olive branch and explaining exactly how the anon could lay out the changes he/she wants so that they could be discussed. I guess the reply showed me I just wasted my time. Davidpdx 07:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] section heading

I think that "2004 sex scandal" is the wrong section heading, in two respects. First, it could easily be read to mean that the "sex" occurred in 2004. Second, and more important, characterizing it as a "sex scandal" is inaccurate. If it had just been a 30-year-old sex scandal, it would have been a fairly minor issue. The notable aspects are that it was criminal sex with a minor, and the coverup. I'd suggest this: "2004 revelation of sex crime and coverup." Open to other suggestions, though. -Pete 00:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to use that minus the 2004. One question I have is how legitimate it is using the word "sex crime" when someone is admitted to something, but not been convicted. Then again I guess one can commit a crime and never get caught (shoplifting is a perfect example). Also with the words "coverup" we have to make sure that any allegations of wrongdoing by others are worded carefully. For example, an ethics complaint has been filed against Kulongoski but nothing has been proven. I worry whether fictional hearsay or conspiracy theories would be added. Given all that, I think "Revelation of sex crimes and coverup" would work I guess. Davidpdx 05:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

David, it's been well established that Goldschmidt committed a crime: the Willamette Week referred to it as a crime, and even the Oregonian said, in relation to the case, that it "does not reveal the identity of sex crime victims." Goldschmidt was also disbarred under a provision that is based on "criminal activity." The fact that he could not be prosecuted is a mere technicality in this matter -- that is, it's not a question of whether he did what is alleged (and what he has admitted); it's merely a question of the statute of limitations.

As to the coverup, the activities of Robert Burtchaell, and Goldschmidt's financial support of the victim and desire for secrecy, have been covered extensively. Of course there is nothing worth covering regarding the present governor -- that's no more notable than the hundreds (at least) of bar complaints lodged every year. -Pete 06:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think with all the conspiracy theories going around about who knew what, it opens a can of worms for someone to come in and POV push those theories whether they are true or not. Of course with Wikipedia, that happens anyway. Davidpdx 08:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, just to be real clear then -- this is a concern I've had for some time. (I think I'm the one who initially titled the section that way, but hey, I make mistakes sometimes.) I'm bringing it up because there seems to be a revival of interest in this article, not out of deference to anyone.

On the specifics, another possibility- the WW has referred to "sexual abuse." That's a term we could use instead of "crime." Pete 18:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, might as well be consistant with the way it is worded. It also would make it less confusing.

I'm curious if anon is simply unwilling to discuss these things and has disappeared or what happened with that person. Davidpdx 04:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not unwilling to discuss. Look back at the number of times I requested discussion for my edits. regarding this edit, I agree. "2004 sex scadal" isn't optimal.71.111.129.39 03:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well certainly this is one portion of that discussion. So far I hear three people discussing this, which is good. How about "Revelation of Sexual Abuse in 1970's" as the section header? Davidpdx 04:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's good. AP Style would dictate "1970s" not "1970's" but I'm not sure what WP:MOS says about it. -Pete 17:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Since headers are supposed to be short and sweet, I'd drop the 1970s bit, and it would be "Revelation of sexual abuse" per MOS. Aboutmovies 17:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Best suggestion yet. I think we have a winner. -Pete 04:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll go for that. Aboutmovies is buying the pizza for everyone! Davidpdx 07:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary new discussion section/compromise solution

I took a stab at reworking the anon's preferred wording (anon, if you read the edit summaries in the page history, you can see, point by point, how I addressed my objections to your wording). I'm not happy with how the bit in the intro turned out ("thus" is such a stuffy word), so if anyone else wants to make an attempt at clarification please do. I think it has been made clear above that no one is threatening or threatening to "out" anyone, so let's move on and discuss the article as it is currently worded. Anon, if you want to see further changes, post the sentence in question on this page as it is currently worded, and then post the change you would like to see and we can discuss it. WPORE editors, we can use the "Support"/"Oppose" style to comment on any proposed changes, if that works for y'all. If the anon feels s/he is being ganged up on by Oregon editors, we can file an RFC and get some outside opinions. Katr67 13:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Katr67: Thanks for taking the bull by the horns and doing what I wanted all along: Specific discussion about the article. AboutMovies deserves a little credit too for starting a discussion about the article, although there was lots of other stuff that didn't have much to do with the article in his recent post. And, there was another poster too who actually discussed the article early on ---thanks! But, You two guys, Katr67 and Aboutmovies get 3 gold stars and a cup of Java for moving things where they needed to go. I'm disappointed in some of the other posters. Despite my repeated requests, they would never discuss my initial edits in specific details. As one poster stated, we were "Wasting our breath" on things that had nothing to do with the article. I can't understand why there was initially so much discussion about me and very few specifics (actually no specifics for some time) about my edits. I would urge you guys to learn to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. One poster threatened me, and then there was response about how it wasn't really a threat. All of this could have been avoided. I didn't want an edit war, I didn't want to "choose a confrontation" as one poster stated. I just wanted to stick to the article, and improve it. Something that I feel finally occurred. At any rate, I'm happy with the article now. Unless it gets reverted or changed in some material manner, or some news about Neil G. occurs which needs to be added, I'm done here with my edits. Thanks again Katr67 for your thoughtful edits, and for your skills in resolving this. -- and to everyone here, perhaps our paths will meet again. 71.111.129.39 01:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Anon, you have a very selective memory. Several times I pointed out how you could lay things out and you refused to even acknowledge my suggestions, much less take them. As to the threats, there are rules on Wikipedia and I recommend you read them. 1) You were clearly in error the way you were going about editing the article in assuming your edits had WP:consensus by stating that other editors should discuss the edits you made AFTER you made them; 2) Someone who is clearly reverting over and over again can be reported and given a temporary ban, which is the direction you were headed had you continued to edit war. This is what I was referring to; 3) You were clearly unwilling to discuss edits and POV pushing (see WP:POV); 4) At least one edit WAS discussed in a seperate section during the time period this all happened, but you refused to contribute. Davidpdx 08:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't deserve any praise--I didn't do much. I think the anon is being disingenuous about his/her participation here, but let's keep further comments on the anon's behavior on the anon's talk page and save this page for discussion about improving the Goldschimidt article. Katr67 15:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Davidpdx said: "Anon, you have a very selective memory..."

I don't see any need for insults. Please stop the insults right now. Please keep the discussion focused on the article. You're making statements about me which aren't true. All I was doing was to "be bold," which is a wikipedia phrase. I was active here on the talk page during the discussion, and more than willing to discuss the article and SPECIFICS of my edits. I did make many comproimises from my original article modifications --- did you not notice? I wasn't reverting over and over as you state. I made many comments on the talk page to facilitate discussion, and these comments didn't always result in me doing a reversion. 71.111.129.39 04:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

When you make false claims about what I have done, yes you have a selective memory. If you want to attack me, then sure your going to get slapped back. Davidpdx 11:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Take this off this page folks. You're no longer discussing the article. I have a feeling this back and forth isn't going to get anywhere though, so why don't you both drop it? Thanks. Katr67 14:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Katr67, I'd like to drop this, but the gate has been opened such that I need to defend myself here. DavidPDX, if you think I have made false claims about what you have done, then please, let's discuss the specifics. It may be just a misunderstanding since I'm not sure where you think I may have made false claims. Also, You made a statement about if I wanted to attack you. I don't see what I could have done to make you think I attacked you, or would attack you. My intention was just to improve the article here. Please recall part of the Wiki pillars is to "keep it civil." Please keep this in mind before you make statements such as "sure, your (sic) going to get slapped back." I find statements such as this to be counterproductive.

thanks!! 71.111.129.39 20:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)