Talk:David Wu

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  reversion 

message: 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.   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)
thread_title:  Added information on Jon Stewart segment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Real Klingons? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of Categories 

message: 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)
thread_title: Chinese is not an ethnicity

message: 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[. Oops. With an edit summary 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: The undue material (currently removed) is shown in this diff. The source 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Undue

message: 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. --Ckatzchatspy 08:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Page restored to semi-protection per the above statement. --Ckatzchatspy 22:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article protected for one week

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reaching a consensus on sexual allegations story

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: July 2011 sexual misconduct allegations

message: 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)
replies: text: You're right, that should've been done a month ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to remove tag that lists him in the "OR-FedRep" template. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Omission from the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Refs on this talk page invalid 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on David Wu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article seems to ignore mental illness issues of David Wu.