Talk:Ed Murray (Washington politician)

SB 5737 reference

Could someone post where in the reference it says that Murray did not read the bill, that the bill was written by the Brady Campaign, or that Murray had sponsored similar bills. The column states Sen. Adam Kline didn't read it well and gives no reference to who wrote the bill or previous similar bills. As I see it, the entire 2nd sentence of that paragraph is unreferenced and should be either sourced or deleted. --Michael Greiner 02:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agree on all three points. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I just made an edit removing the 2nd sentence, and rewording the first to better state what the reference claims. I'm going to decline the RFPP request, since hopefully objections are now answered. --Michael Greiner 05:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This is categorically false, and a gross representation of both the Senator and the bill itself. For starters, that paragraph states that the purpose of the bill was to allow warrantless searches. The reality is that the bill, Senate Bill 5737 prohibited the manufacturing and selling of assault weapons.

The language involving searches involved a minor controversy in which the bill, which had been proposed in previous sessions, contained the language from an amendment from a similar bill introduced in a previous session. It was obviously not the Senator’s intent to include that language in the version he proposed, which is why that language isn’t in the bill now.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5737&year=2013

The Senator, a Democrat, is in the minority party. That means for the language to be removed after the bill was dropped, both the leader of the opposing caucus (Rodney Tom) and the Republican-appointed Secretary of the Senate (Hunter Goodman)had to agree that the language was an honest mistake and should be taken out of the bill.

This language was removed before the article referenced in the offending paragraph was published.

Furthermore, the article states that Murray “sponsored identical bills in previous session.” This is extremely misleading, as this was the first assault weapons ban the Senator ever prime sponsored.

The offending paragraph is one of only five paragraphs in the body of the article describing the career of one of the state’s most accomplished politicians. To allow a mischaracterized, single-day incident with no repercussions to be portrayed as a defining career moment is unreasonable at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.238.208.67 (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This IP (and other IPs) repeatedly blanked the two sentences in question. The two sentences were then edited by an Admin in the processing of vetting a vandalism protection resulting, resulting in:

"In February 2013, Murray was a sponsor of a bill, SB 5737, that would allow police to conduct warrantless searches in the homes of assault weapon owners once per year, with a punishment of up to one year in jail for citizens who did not comply.[6][7]"

This single sentence was then also blanked by this IP without comment. As this current sentence bears little overlap with the above characterization, please restate in context to the current format. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The single sentence is still incorrect. It falsely states that SB 5737 would allow police to conduct warrantless searches in the homes of assault weapon owners. SB 5737 has NO language allowing that. The language was an error made by the Code Revisers' office, which is evidenced by the fact that it has subsequently been removed. When an error is CLEARLY a drafting error and ONLY WITH APPROVAL BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE, the Code Reviser can correct the bill. Secretary of the Senate Hunter Goodman – with Majority Leader Rodney Tom’s consent – agreed to have the bill corrected to Senators Murray, Kline and Kohl-Welle’s original intent. As such, the single statement remains false, and only remains as a political attack on the Senator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.238.208.67 (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed your IP is registered to the State Of Washington - Legislative Service Center. If you are connected to Mr. Murray personally you should read this. Also, the fact that the bill was later edited doesn't change the fact that he did sponsor the bill with the search clause written into it. If you want to bring up that the bill was changed, it can be written as (changes in bold)...

"In February 2013, Murray was a sponsor of a assault weapons ban bill, SB 5737, that as originally written would have allowed police to conduct warrantless searches in the homes of assault weapon owners once per year, with a punishment of up to one year in jail for citizens who did not comply.[6][7]"

 :--Michael Greiner 23:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, having now read that page, it seems apparent that a "that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Wikipedia," given that the page incorrectly described the bill and the process. While the language posted above is more truthful, in the interest of intellectual honesty I would add "This language was immediately removed when the Secretary of the Senate and the leader of the opposition party agreed that the language was a drafting error and not the Senator's intent."

I maintain, however, that this was a minor incident, in the news for less than a week, and unfairly and disproportionately dominates the Wikipedia page of someone who is known for far more consequential events. 198.238.208.67

Ed Murray is the leader of the Democratic party in the Washington state Senate. Murray sponsored the bill (1st exisiting citation and 2nd).

The second citation states:

Murray indicated that passing an assault weapons ban was one of his top priorities this legislative session, saying, “I’m not willing to take it off the table.”

The first citation states:

The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, also condemned the search provision in his own bill, after I asked him about it. He said Palmer is right that it’s probably unconstitutional.

“I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” Murray said.

He said he came to realize that an assault-weapons ban has little chance of passing this year anyway. So he put in this bill more as “a general statement, as a guiding light of where we need to go.”

I haven't observed anything quoting Murray as to indicate that the language was a "drafting error" or similar clerical issue from his perspective, while the citations do reflect this being a "top priority" for him, likely unconstitutional in his view, and "where we need to go." (No implied WP:Synthesis that he is trying to overthrow the constitution or similar nonsense.) Do you have any WP:verifiable sourcing related to this being a "drafting error" or Murray subsequently distancing himself on any related basis?

While not particularly arguing for further expansion beyond the single sentence (WP:Undue), the 1st citation explicitly states that the same language was 1) present in two earlier bills in 2010 and 2005 (again contradicting this as being a "drafting mistake") and 2) was written by the Brady Campaign and Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (Seattle Times). I'm indifferent to changes to the sentence vs modifying re "drafted/orginally/etc," but offer:

"In February 2013, Murray was a sponsor of an assault weapons ban bill, SB 5737, that as drafted would have allowed police to conduct warrantless searches in the homes of assault weapon owners once per year, with a punishment of up to one year in jail for citizens who did not comply.[6][7]" UW Dawgs (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is an article that contains language from other sponsors of the bill explicitly stating that the language in the bill was a drafting error

"Once the error was discovered and shown to CLEARLY have been a drafting error, and with approval by the Secretary of the Senate," Kohl-Welles excused nonetheless, "the Senate Majority Leader, Senator Rodney Tom, agreed to have the bill corrected to the sponsors’ original intent" and "the Code Reviser corrected the bill on Friday."

"In her statement to Examiner Wednesday, Kohl-Welles also blamed "Senate Committee Services staff," saying "they" drafted the measure "using an old version of a bill introduced in previous sessions."

If the section is to be included in the Wikipedia article, the fact that the clause was removed from the bill without a formal admendment and with bipartisan acknowledgement of a drafting error by committee staff must be included. 198.238.208.67

Examiner.com is explicitly blocked from citation on Wikipedia due to the nature of how the content is created and by whom (which is also the cause of the new citation error which now appears on this page), see Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Seattle Displacement Coalition material lacking WP:RS

@Mtq: this edit, which has been introduced twice, relies on [1] as a WP:RS (it is not) and seems to link to a directory page, rather than a supporting article per WP:V. Therefore, the edit has been removed again. Per WP:BURDEN, this material should not be re-added until/unless paired with a reliable source which supports the associated text. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ed Murray (Washington politician). 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/20060510092924/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/html/politics/2002903541_murray01m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002903541_murray01m.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Fourth person accuses Ed Murray of molestation.

A few days ago, a fourth person (Maurice Jones) publicly accused Ed Murray of molestation. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fourth-man-accuses-seattle-mayor-ed-murray-of-paying-him-for-sex/ http://www.king5.com/news/local/seattle/fourth-person-accuses-seattle-mayor-of-sex-abuse/436231209 The main article needs to be re-written to describe the various people and their accusations. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image RfC

The consensus is that the infobox should contain Choice #3, File:Ed murray at torchlight parade 2014 cropped.jpg. Editors noted that the third choice only shows Murray so there are fewer distractions.

Cunard (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Should the infobox contain Choice #1 (the current version), Choice #2, or Choice #3? -- ψλ ● ✉ 20:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Choices

#1 (current infobox image)

#2

#3

Infobox images to choose from

#1

#2

• Support as second choice. Better version of the current infobox image - removes distracting background, tighter crop makes it more of an infobox-type image. Choice 3, however, is preferable as it has no background distractions or a microphone in in front of the subject's face. -- ψλ ● ✉ 20:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

#3

• Support as first choice. Since Murray is no longer mayor as of today (9/13/17) due to his resignation, I suggest the infobox should contain a photo that is less "mayoral" in appearance. If others disagree, my second choice is #2, the cropped version of #1. -- ψλ ● ✉ 20:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think either photo represents Murray in a substantially different light, but the third photo only shows Murray and is thus better focused on the subject. Appable (talk | contributions) 05:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support Waste of time. scope_creep (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support (Summoned by bot) better as there are less distractions. L3X1 (distænt write) 13:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - #3 does not have items and other subjects in the background. Plus, it looks like it is the most recent. Meatsgains (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Why? See Talk:Bruce_Harrell#Discussion --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It's the polite thing to do. There are likely people who watch this article and would be upset should the photo just be changed out without discussion. I'm trying to avoid conflict and a possible edit war. Do you have a preference one over another? If so, feel free to take part in the RfC. -- ψλ ● ✉ 01:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Meatsgains, the same should probably be done here with this image RfC as was done with the Bruce Harrell RfC. Would you mind? -- ψλ ● ✉ 00:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Meatsgains (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

---

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ed Murray (Washington politician). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002903541_murray01m.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081027021303/http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid39295.asp to http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid39295.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/mayor-ed-murray-sexually-abused-foster-son-child-welfare-investigator-found-in-1984/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)