Jump to content

Talk:Mark Hatfield/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

"Outing" by ACTUP

Information about his bring outed by ACTUP Portland should be added. http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/outing,2.html Alison9 23:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Obscure info?

The information regarding the debate tournament and library are not "obscure".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.104.2.114 (talk • contribs) 13:43, March 13, 2005

NPOV issues

Statements such as "Hatfield pressured newspapers in Oregon to not run pro-Lonsdale editorials and even used his position as a U.S. Senator to force the EPA to investigate Lonsdale's former business, Bend Research." should have some sort of supporting literature before being used in a Encyclopedic format. As it stands it is not Neutral Point of View, which is the standard of Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 17:30, July 24, 2005

Expansion

Please add any ideas for expanding the article here. Thanks! Katr67 19:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Death penalty

Hatfield was strongly pro-life on the issues of abortion and the death penalty.

While in Senate he strongly opposed the death penalty, that's fact. However as Governor of Oregon he presided over last pre-Furman execution in 1992 (by gas chamber) [1]. His precedessor in office and 1958 opponent Robert D. Holmes, commmuted every death sentences during his term [2] Darth Kalwejt (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand -- Hatfield was not Governor in 1992. -Pete (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
My mistake - I mean 1962 Darth Kalwejt (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I've re-worded that sentence, but also note even as governor he did oppose the death penalty, and commuted the sentences of all on death row later after the state voted out the death penalty. Unlike when SCOTUS said it was cruel and unusual, the state could have continued executing those previously sentenced to death. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hatfield and Vietnam

Time Magazine article from Oct. 14, 1966. -Pete (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've worked it in, but I'm trying not to put too much Vietnam info into the article. It's interesting and some is needed, but I don't want it to become too much of an undue weight situation. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Source

I am removing this: "He was also the lone Republican to vote against the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act that was passed in his final year in the Senate."

As I cannot find any source to back it up. Feel free to re-add it if you find a RS. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mark Hatfield/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
This is generally a very good article - I was engaged by it and learned a great deal - but there are some things that need to be addressed before it's promoted to GA status. I would like nothing better than to promote this after these issues are addressed. Great work, and my compliments to all involved. My review is below. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well written

The prose is generally okay, but there are some issues:

  • In the second sentence of the lead, the verb "served" appears twice. While simply removing the second instance might cause confusion as to whether he also served for 30 years as Appropriations Committee Chair, I think this could be avoided by changing it to read something like "...he served as a United States Senator from Oregon for 30 years, and also as Chairman...".
  • "He was the youngest person to ever serve in either of those offices, serving two terms as governor before election to the United States Senate." I would change "serving" to "and served". The current tense suggests that the process of serving two terms as governor was going on while he was the youngest person to serve as Secretary of State, which obviously isn't the case.
  • "With this role he was able to direct funding to Oregon and research related projects." There should be a hyphen between "research" and "related".
  • "In the Senate he would serve Oregon for 30 years, and now holds the record for longest serving Senator from Oregon." I have a minor POV quibble with this sentence (which I'll get to in the appropriate section of the review), but if it stays as is I'd suggest changing the second instance of "Oregon" to "that state", or otherwise changing the sentence to avoid this issue.
  • "Mark's father was from Oregon, and his mother from Tennessee." There's no need for this comma here.
  • "She then began teaching in Dallas for two years before the family moved to Salem where she taught junior high." "...then began..." is unnecessary and only makes the sentence more awkward.
  • The second paragraph of "Early life" flows a little choppily.
I don't see "then" in that paragraph, was that already removed, maybe? -Pete (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Encouraged by his mother, Hatfield's first experience with politics came at the age of ten when he campaigned for President Herbert Hoover’s 1932 re-election campaign in his neighborhood." "...in his neighbourhood" is a bit of a dangling modifier. While I doubt that anybody would actually think that Hebert Hoover was running for re-election in his neighbourhood, grammatically speaking it could be parsed that way. I'd suggest instead "...when he campaigned in his neighbourhood for President Herbert Hoover's...".
  • "On the weekends during his senior year in high school he would use his key to enter the governor’s office at the capitol and sit in the governor’s chair." I'd change "would use" to "used" (or better yet combine this anecdote with the previous sentence somehow).
  • It's still a little inelegant, I think. How about "In the late 1930s Hatfield worked as a tour guide at the new Oregon State Capitol Building in Salem, using his key to enter the governor's office where he sat in the governor's chair."? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "The case would make its way to the Oregon Supreme Court in 1943, with the court affirming the trial courts decision." I'd change "would make" to "make" - "would make" would be more appropriate to more of a parenthetical device, while I think this is a core part of the narrative. Besides that, there needs to be an apostrophe in "trial courts".
  • "A lieutenant, he also witnessed the effects of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima as one of the first Americans to see the ruins of the city and later, as a Senator, opposed arms proliferation and the Vietnam War." This is clunky, and temporally links (despite the word "later") his wartime experience with his Senate record. I'd suggest using parentheses, to make it read "...to see the ruins of the city (later, as Senator, Hatfield opposed arms proliferation and the Vietnam War)."
  • "Hatfield returned to Salem and Willamette after Stanford and began working as an assistant professor in political science." Use a pronoun here in place of Hatfield's name, which is already in the previous sentence.
  • "At the time he was the youngest legislator and still lived at home." The youngest legislator where? In the Oregon House of Representatives? In the Oregon Legislative Assembly? In the U.S.? Also, what do you mean by "at home"? If you mean that he lived with his parents, say that instead of "at home".
Partly addressed. Didn't use "lived with his parents" as that is too close to the original source's phrasing, and per the WP:MOS, quotes should be kept to a minimum. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "While in college he saw first hand the discrimination against African Americans in Salem when he was tasked with driving Black artists back to Portland, as they were prohibited from staying in hotels in Salem." Earlier in the article, it's spelled "firsthand". This should probably be made consistent.
  • "In 1953, he introduced and was able to pass legislation..." How about "...he successfully passed..." or "he introduced successful legislation..."?
  • From my legislation class, it really is a two part process, which is what I was trying to demonstrate. So many bills are introduced that go nowhere, but here he introduced the bill and then guided it through passage of both houses and got the gov to sign it into law. I prefer the current wording as it best shows the two-parts, whereas your suggestions make it appear as one. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough - how about "introduced and passed"? I think that flows better than "introduced and was able to pass".
Works for me, changed. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "...prohibited discrimination based on race in public accommodations prior to federal legislation and court decisions did so on a national level." This isn't grammatically correct. It should either be "...before federal legislation and court decisions did so..." or "...prior to federal legislation and court decisions doing so..." I prefer the former.
  • "Hatfield continued to apply his grassroots strategy he learned from Earl Snell while in the legislature, but expanded it to cover the entire state to increase his political base." I'd suggest changing this to "the grassroots strategy". Also, even though the Oregon State Senate is a legislature, the use of the word here is a little ambiguous, since by this point he'd been in a legislature for four years. I'd suggest changing it to "...while in the Senate..."
  • "After two years in the Oregon State Senate, he became the youngest secretary of state in Oregon history after winning election in November 1956 at age 34. Hatfield defeated fellow state senator Monroe Sweetland for the office, receiving 51.3% of the vote in the November general election." These two sentences repeat themselves a fair bit - we already know that by the 1956 election he'd been in the State Senate for two years, and the fact that the election was in November is mentioned twice.
  • "For his first run for Governor of Oregon in 1958, the Republican Party opposed his candidacy." This is confusing to me - since he won the Republican primary, didn't the Republican Party, by definition, support his candidacy? If you're talking about before the primary, who was it in the Republican Party that opposed his candidacy?
I'll address this somewhat, but just because the people vote someone into the Republican nomination does not mean the party supports that nomination. I am a registered Republican voter, but I am not a member of the party. Thus who I vote for may not be supported by the party. Further, in the last primary, I could have switched to a registered Democrat for the election and voted for Hillary to try and extend the Democratic nomination process. This ability to effect other parties was one of the complaints about Washington's open primary elections that the U.S. Supreme Court made a recent decision on. I'll re-word somewhat. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not that familiar with the inner workings, but usually there is a central committee where all the power lies in the party. I do know that as a registered Republican I can sign up with the Sec. of State's office to run in the primary, and as far as I know the Republican Party doesn't need to sign off on it. Of course they don't need to give campaign contributions to me either. From what little the sources say, it appears that in general the party's unamed old guard were not too supportive of this young, somewhat brash, and somewhat liberal upstart. But what's in the article is about as detailed as it gets. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The source says this:
Ignoring the "party party" typo, I'm not sure from this whether it was a formal position of the Oregon Republican Party, or a less tangible opposition of influential party leaders. I think the best course is to leave it as is, reflecting the ambiguity of the source article. -Pete (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "His large political base he had cultivated allowed him..." I'd suggest either "The large political base he had cultivated allowed him..." or simply "His large political base allowed him...".
  • "...defeating Oregon State Treasurer Sig Unander for the Republican nomination." Since the subject of this sentence if "His large political base", this isn't correct.
  • "The couple would have four children; Elizabeth, Mark Jr., Theresa and Visko as well as eight grandchildren." The semicolon here is incorrect, since the portion appearing after it is not an independent clause. A colon would work, except for the "as well as eight grandchildren" part, which is clearly meant to be linked with "four children" rather than "Elizabeth, Mark Jr., Theresa and Visko". I'd suggest using dashes to create a parenthetical device: "...four children—Elizabeth, Mark Jr., Theresa and Visko—and eight grandchildren."
  • The description of the gubernatorial campaign is a little out of order - first it talks about the primary, then it talks about his marriage, then it talks about his victory, and then it jumps back in time to talk about the campaign.
It's in order, chronological order as is most of the article. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In the November general election Hatfield defeated incumbent Robert D. Holmes, a Democrat, with 55.3% of the vote. That same election saw the Democratic Party gain a majority in both chambers of the state legislature for the first time since 1878., which talks about the election results, comes before In the final days of the campaign U.S. Senator Wayne Morse, a Democrat, implied that Hatfield had lied in his trial regarding the deadly car accident when he was 17. This tactic backfired as the press denounced the comments, as did Holmes and other Democrats. That's what I mean. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "...avoided most public appearances with fellow Republican candidates for office while also not mentioning them during his campaign..." This is awkward - I'd suggest "...candidates for office and did not mention them..." or something similar.
  • "In the November general election..." We don't need yet another reminder that the election was in November.
  • That's the only time that election is mentioned it is in November. You and I and most readers know the general elections for Oregon are in November, but as we write for a global audience, I try to include the obvious. I did make a change later to reduce the number of Novembers. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "In the final days of the campaign Senator Wayne Morse, a Democrat, implied that Hatfield had lied in his trial..." The way this currently reads, it sounds like Morse was a state senator, when he was actually a national senator.
  • "Holmes attempted to appoint David O'Hara to the Secretary of State position while still in office to replace Hatfield who would need to resign to become governor..." This is clunky. I'd suggest "Holmes attempted to appoint Democrat David O'Hara as Secretary of State to replace Hatfield, who would have to resign to become governor..." Of course, this assumes that David O'Hara was a Democrat.
  • "He became the state's first two-term governor in the 20th century when he was re-elected in 1962, and only the second governor up to that point in the state's history to serve two full-terms. In 1962, Hatfield had been considered a possible candidate to run against Morse for his Senate seat, but Hatfield instead ran for re-election." First, I'd invert these two sentences: first he decided to run for re-election, and then he was re-elected. Also, he didn't become the second governor to serve two full terms when he was re-elected in 1962; that didn't happen until 1967, when he completed his term.
  • "He was also the youngest governor in the history of Oregon at that point in time at the age of 36." This sentence is out of place and should probably be moved back to the part where he was first elected governor.
  • Good, but your (excellent) changes to the bit about the Secretary of State controversy now makes this out of place yet again. Maybe relocate it to the sentence about him defeating Holmes? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think its fine as the challenge and the youngest would have been simultanious. The political wrangling occurred before he took office, but the official appointment and legal challenge was once he took office, at which point he would be the youngest. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "During the Vietnam War, and during a the election year..." Too many articles.
  • "...he was the only person to vote against a resolution by a governor's conference" Apostrophe should go after the S.
  • "...the more centrist Maryland Governor Spiro Agnew was chosen by Nixon." As much as the passive voice is loved by me personally, this should probably be changed to the active.
  • "...to reduce funding for the Whitehouse's legal department..." White House is two words.
  • "...in 1973 during the Watergate Scandal after Nixon had failed to use funds appropriated for renovating dams on the Columbia River." This would probably flow better with a comma after "Watergate Scandal".
  • "...adding that "in the abstract, at least, he is very favorable to libertarianism."" Since Hatfield is the subject of this sentence, this reads as though it was Hatfield who added that. I believe it was actually Rothbard that did so, though, and this should be clarified.
  • This is leftover from a previous editor, and I don't see an issue. Rothbard is the last person mentioned before the "adding" so it should refer to him. I'll split it into two sentences though. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • While I could be mistaken, I believe that all style authorities hyphenate "co-sponsor" and "co-author". If I am mistaken, please let me know and disregard this point.
  • "The N-Reactor was used for producing weapons grade plutonium along with electricity." "Along with" is bulky. "And" would be better, except that it would cause the loss of emphasis on the plutonium as being the point of contention. How about "Besides electricity, the N-Reactor was used to produce weapons grade plutonium."?
  • Not sure how to make this less bulky, but my understanding is the reactor makes electricity, and at the same time as by-product it makes the weapons grade plutonium. See if the re-wording works for you. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Though Hatfield was a supporter of nuclear fusion programs." Sentence fragment.
  • "Hatfield frequently broke with his party on issues of national defense and foreign policy, such as military spending and the ban on travel to Cuba, while frequently siding with them on environmental and conservation issues." "Frequently" is overused here. Could the second case by changed to "usually"? If not, could it just be deleted?
  • The "National" section is kind of choppy. Could you build in some context to make it flow better? One suggestion would be to organize the section thematically rather than sequentially, so you wouldn't have to keep breaking up descriptions of what he did as Senator with descriptions of his re-elections (you already do this in some places, such as with the ethics issues).
  • Improved, for sure. I think you could still do better here - for example, by grouping all of the evidence about his maverick tendencies together in a paragraph of the subject, and grouping all of the sentences about his reputation ("sixth most respected", "enjoyed warm relations", "Sometimes referred to as "Saint Mark"", etc.) together in a paragraph about that, etc. If it comes down to it, I'm not going to hold up the GA over it, but I really think this is one of the few things that's wrong with the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Hatfield was the only Republican in the Senate to vote against the proposed balanced budget amendment, which was the deciding vote that prevented the passage of the bill." I'd change "which was" to "and was", since Hatfield is the sentence's subject.
  • "Also in 1996 the National Historical Publications and Records Commission granted him their Distinguished Service Award, a group he served on previously." "a group he served on previously" is a dangling modifier here.
 Done -Pete (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "...health care facilities among others." I thinks "among others" is sufficiently strongly-implied that it need not be stated.
  • I think "Later years and legacy" could use an introduction, even a one sentence introduction. Right now the bus collision comes across as the topic sentence, which it probably shouldn't be.
  • "...as well as at lecturing..." This could be shortened to "...and lectures...".
  • "The Mark O. Hatfield Library at Willamette is also dedicated to him..." What does "also" refer to here?
  • "...along with Oregon State University's marine biology research center, the Hatfield Marine Science Center." How about just "...along with the Oregon State University's Hatfield Marine Science Center"? The name makes it fairly clear what it is, and anybody who wants further information can just click on the wikilink.

New issues

  • "Hatfield was a popular Governor, who supported Oregon's traditional industries of timber and agriculture, but felt that in the postwar era, expansion of industry and funding for transportation and education needed to be priorities." Too many commas. The one between "era" and "expansion" is incorrect, unless you also add one after "felt that". I'd also delete the one after "Governor", but that's a stylistic issue rather than a straight grammatical one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

All of my issues having been addressed, I'm passing this section (and therefore the article as a whole). I'd still suggest that there's room for improvement in the quality of the writing, and I'd encourage involved editors to continue to work on improving it, especially if an FA nomination is in the cards in the future sometime. But for the time being, congratulations on a job well done. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Factually accurate

Almost perfect. However:

  • In the opening paragraph of "Political career" is says that he was "a candidate for the Republican Vice Presidential nomination for Richard Nixon's 1968 campaign." In this context "candidate for" strongly suggests that he actually ran for the position, when in fact it appears that he was only considered for it. This should probably be clarified.
I disagree, much like Hillary Clinton is a candidate for the VP nomination right now, along with many others, Hatfield was as well. He was a candidate for the nomination, and since there is no real formal process anymore (the convention's really do not make the selection, the Presidential candidate makes the selection) anyone considered by the Presidential candidate would be a candidate for the VP nomination. Basically, the VP nomination process is informal, and in this instance Hatfield received consideration for the nomination. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The "Works authored" section is unreferenced.
I have added a cite to WorldCat, but these sections are not usually referenced (see Rachel Carson for example) as the items are references themselves (which is why I added ISBN/OLCL numbers to those missing). Aboutmovies (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, I agree with Aboutmovies on both these points. -Pete (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
It's worth something - I agree with him on the second point, too. I still disagree on the first point - I think in this context "candidate" strongly implies filing papers or something - but with both of you in agreement that I'm wrong, I'll let it slide. Pass on the factual accuracy front. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Broad

Excellent. I was left with only a few things I'd like to see improved. However, failing to improve these things shouldn't cause the article's failure, I just think including them would make it even better.

  • "He also received national attention for his early support for coaxing Dwight D. Eisenhower to run for President of the United States as a Republican." This reads as though he managed this single handedly. I assume that he didn't, but either way this seems noteworthy enough for some expansion (for example, why would Eisonhower be inclined to listen to a state representative?).
Eisenhower probably didn't listen to Hatfield. Hatfield didn't coax him, he supported coaxing Eisenhower to run as a Republican, and was one of the early supports of this campaign to get Eisenhower to run. In that capacity, Hatfield received national press attention. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Not absolutely necessary, but a little expansion of what he did while Secretary of State would be nice if the information's available.
There really wasn't anything, other than the campaign for governor that took up about a year of his time in the position, out of a total of two years in that office, plus the marriage. The position has little power other than ballot titles and voter registration, so not much room for making policy. As one of the references stated about the position in general, it is more of a high profile position that gets the office holder's name out to the public than anything else. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Whoa there -- I don't know about Hatfield's role as SoS, but I'm a little shocked by this characterization of the SoS. 40% of the office's budget is for the Audits Division, which has the potential if used appropriately to hold all of Oregon government accountable; the SoS is one of 3 member of the State Lands Board, which is a significant funder of schools; and the SoS is responsible for redistricting after every census. Also handles business registrations, etc. etc. The elections stuff gets the most press, but that doesn't mean it's the only important thing the SoS does. -Pete (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I think they wield more power now, but I don't think there was as much then. And I didn't mean to indicate the have no power, just significantly less than the Gov, and certainly less than the US SoS. Only with Measure 5 does state level school funding amount to much, and I don't think Hatfield would not have done re-districting during his term ('57-'59), so what the source was saying is the SoS position was more title than power. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I gather that the defeat of an incumbent governor is at least a little bit unusual, but I don't see much explanation of the circumstances or controversies that allowed Hatfield to defeat Holmes. What were the election's major issues? What were seen as the major differences between Hatfield and Holmes?
  • "...the appointment was challenged and Hatfield appointed Howell Appling, Jr. to the office." How was the appointment challenged? Was there a court ruling of some kind? Did Holmes back down due to pressure?

Neutrally-written

Generally neutral, although it comes across as having a very slight pro-Hatfield bent. I've identified whatever reasons for this that I can:

  • "In the Senate he would serve Oregon..." This is a little POV (for some reason, just saying "serve" comes across neutrally, while specifying who is being served seems boosterish). I'd suggest something along the lines of just "He served as U.S. Senator from Oregon..."
  • "...the press denounced the personal attack..." Calling it a "personal attack" seems a little POV. What about something like "tactic" or "comments"?
  • "...as Hatfield opposed the war, but supported the troops." "Supported the troops" is one of those phrases that usually doesn't really mean anything. Unless you can explain what it means here (did he actively support increased wages for the military, or something?), I'd suggest just deleting it.
  • I went ahead and used the exact quote to make it a little clearer, and added a little to it. But unlike now, "support the troops" wasn't quite the empty words it comes across as now. Following the treatment of returning Vets from Vietnam, some people felt that the Vietnam War's unpopularity transfered to the Vets and they got a raw deal. Thus in the post Desert Storm and now war in Iraq landscape, the phrase has become a bit of an empty phrase. Hopefully that's enough. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think your change fixes it. To keep the debate going, though, were there any politicians at the time who would characterize themselves as not supporting the troops? If not, I think that shows it's kind of an empty phrase, sort of like "pro-family" (who self-identifies as anti-family?). I think that's the acid test for determining whether a label is meaningful, or whether it's an empty term people use to make themselves sound good. For example, "pro-life" is a meaningful term, since there are plenty of politicians who would resist being so-characterized. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Hatfield was a popular and progressive Governor, who supported Oregon's traditional industries of timber and agriculture, but realized that in the postwar era, expansion of industry and funding for transportation and education needed to be priorities." This sentence, with the possible exception of the "popular" part (which can be quantified), is POV.

Stable

Pass.

Well-illustrated

Very nice - appropriate image choices, all of them free.

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Hatfield/Archive_1&oldid=849350721"