Talk:Gordon H. Smith/Archive 1

Archive 1

Disambiguation

I have had second thoughts, my earlier change to the handling of the name Gordon Smith was a bit naughty. The serving US Senator must be a lot better known than the Hibs footballer from the 1950s, he ought to be treated as the primary meaning of this name on Wikipedia. Although the latter was not all that obscure, he was one of the best known footballers in Scotland at the time. Gordon Smith (disambiguation) may not have anything pointing to it at present, but we should keep it for future expansion reasons, this is probably not a particularly unusual name, others may emerge on Wikipedia. PatGallacher 19:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I can't figure out why it happened, the "dab" tag displayed the page incorrectly for me, including the disambig page on dopamine and "/noinclude" twice. The "disambig" tag displayed correctly. A.Z. 05:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Trent Lott

The passages about Sen. Lott seem redundant, and the portion under "Controversy" has little to do with Sen. Smith. It should be changed, with much of the Lott material being removed.

Jketvirtis 10:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Can his abortion position be described in NPOV way?

From "Conservative or moderate?" section:

Smith is a member of The Republican Main Street Partnership and supports stem cell research, even as he largely opposes abortion.

There are ways to bring up a politician's position on the abortion debate without introducing POV, but this isn't one. Does he describe himself as "pro-life" or "pro-choice"? Does he recieve support from advocacy groups on either side? Has he supported any legislation addressing the issue? Has he made any statements regarding Roe v. Wade? Any info of this type would introduce the issue without bias, but saying "he largely opposes abortion" appears to be choosing sides, albeit subtly. Perhaps it's more accurate to say "...he also supports legislation restricting abortion." As it stands, though, the statement needs verifiable facts introduced. -Tobogganoggin ^talk 22:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the pro life or right-to-choose groups has a website which tracks his voting record? —EncMstr 23:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'll have time today, but I'm hunting. So far I've got a NARAL score of 10% pro-choice here. (not sure what their scale means though) -Tobogganoggin ^talk 23:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Here it says 15% which is based on five senate votes of two issues described on PDF pages 11 and 16 of this. It would be hard to conclude that he is pro-choice from these, though a multi-year voting history would be a lot more convincing. —EncMstr 23:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Minimum Wage and the Death with Dignity Act

All of the sentences in this article seem fair and NPOV except this one...

"Smith's votes have run contrary to widespread public sentiment on several issues, notably minimum wage and Oregon's Death with Dignity Act."

The fact that Smith voted against minimum wage and the DWDA is well-documented in the article, but the phrase "contrary to widespread public sentiment" seems to be largely subjective to me, since no polls are cited in the article. The DWDA article says that the law was passed in 1994, but since the popular vote only went 51.3% to 48.7% in favor of it (and an attempt to repeal it was rejected by 60% of voters), I'm not sure if "widespread public sentiment" is an appropriate phrase to use, especially since going against public sentiment has a negative connotation in the minds of most voters. Is there a better way to rephrase this sentence? I was thinking maybe something like splitting the two votes into seperate sentences, like "Smith voted against raising the minimum wage [citations]" and "He also opposed Oregon Death with Dignity Act [citations], despite the fact that 51.3% of Oregonians voted to pass it in 2004 [citation] and 60% rejected an attempt to repeal it in 19977 [citation]." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NathanDahlin (talk • contribs) 15:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Note: Nathan and I discussed this via email, and reached a resolution we're both happy with. I consider this issue resolved, unless somebody has a problem with the new phrasing/sourcing. -Pete 20:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Smith, this guy has a long record of running afoul with his state majority. He tries to ban medical marijuana research while his home state has already legalized medical marijuana. Seemingly he lets his own ideology to trump the will of constituents. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

While I'm pretty much always up for a lively political debate, Wikipedia really isn't the place for it. -Pete 22:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, I was just trying to point out about Smith's history of anti-his-own-constituent as not surprising. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed external links

Since Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of links, I removed the linked articles but I'll list them here in case anyone wants to use these as references for additions to the article:

Articles

• Political Graveyard — Udall Family of Arizona
• Gordon Smith: key supporter of Trent Lott
• The Oregonian on Garrett Smith's suicide
• IMNO Interviews Gordon Smith
• mormoncentury.org — Why Smith supported stem cell research
• Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR): Bush’s Iraq Policy ‘May Even Be Criminal’
• Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) Calls Bush’s Iraq Policy a ‘Dereliction’ and ‘Deeply Immoral’
• Snow Dismisses Gordon Smith’s Criticisms Of Iraq Policy, Says Senator Is Just Being ‘Emotional’
• Chart from The Oregonian showing that Gordon Smith votes with the Republican leader 82% of the time
• discussion of Smith's classification as a moderate Daily Kos, November 8, 2006

--Gloriamarie 22:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Smith/Udall

Article says "a pair of brother and a pair of sisters who intermarried" in reference to Smith and Udall connection.

The full quote form the article is "They are double cousins, as their grandparents were a pair of brother and a pair of sisters who intermarried. Smith is the only Republican in the group."

1. First, is this claim about Mr. Smith and the Udall's being double-cousins true?
2. Is it substantiated?
3. Also, is it fair to say that "a pair of brother and a pair of sisters who intermarried?"

This is the text in the current article, I think it should be substantiated and stated in a Neutral Point of View. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.198.58 (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the Udall family article for a family tree. That tree is unsourced, but here are a few links that reference the relationship: http://news.opb.org/article/oregon-senator-part-bi-partisan-political-dynasty/

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/10/03/two-udalls-and-a-smith-walk-into-the-senate/

I'm not sure what part of you consider POV, so please rewrite it in a way that you consider NPOV. --Esprqii (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Per the infobox instructions do not add the nominee parts to the infobox. They are not compatible with someone who has held office before as the previous offices do not display. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Smith's Position on Iraq

I'm concerned about the section concerning Smith's position on the War in Iraq. Before my last edit, there was no information about his vote in favor of authorizing the invasion. Smith's re-election campaign has been playing up his recent opposition to the war, and I just want to make sure that his past positions are represented here, too, so we can get all the information. Full disclosure: I oppose his re-election bid. Dfunk1967 (talk) 08:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, so in the section you edited where it says (boldface added by me) the following from the prior to your edits:

• In December 2006 Gordon Smith spoke out against the Iraq war for the first time, after having voted in support of it four years prior.[28] Smith said that to continue the current policy in Iraq "may even be criminal".[29]
• Several weeks after stating his opposition to the occupation of Iraq, however, Smith declined to sign onto a bipartisan resolution to oppose the President's plan to escalate troop levels in Iraq by 21,500,[30] prompting questions about the sincerity of his opposition to the continued US military presence in Iraq.[31] Smith cited the controversial nature of the word "escalate" in defending his choice. The bill's sponsors have since changed the word to "increase." Smith expressed support for the bill, but subsequently voted to prevent it from being debated by the full Senate.

So my question is, did you miss that part or do you just want to emphasize that position? Aboutmovies (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1