Talk:Steve Novick

advert and wikify banners
I'm not sure that the work I did was sufficient to warrant the removal of these banners at the top of the page. This page is still more like a campaign brochure than I'd like, though it's getting better. I consider it a point of etiquette to give the editor who originally added the banners a chance to weigh in before removing them.

The one thing that would help this article the most is more citations from news sources. The campaign web site is a fine source for details like date of birth and so forth, but not so much for more substantive claims. -Pete 21:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflicts of Interest
If you work for the campaign of this candidate or an opponent, please read WP:COI before you edit this article. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

capital gains part is ridiculously POV
Capital gains is "earned from the exploitation of wealth"?

Really? That's news to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.250.207 (talk) 19:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's probably not appropriate to have a "political positions" section where there isn't much in the way of secondary sources. It's all cited to the Novick web site. Should we just delete the whole section? -Pete (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

External link
Shouldn't the recently-added interview stay? Per WP:EL "what to include":


 * Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

Is there a reason to exclude? (Note, I haven't listened to the interview, but the Young Turks show is generally pretty informative.) -Pete (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure but we'll have to watch out for the ensuing linkfarm. Is the the best interview? Are there others? On articles like these I tend to err on the side of only having the one "official" link, because much like a band article, it's hard to say which content is the most relevant. I'm unfamiliar with Young Turks (last I heard it was a Rod Stewart song), and the addition of the exclamation point in the link made me suspicious, but if you think the site is reliable go ahead and put it back. Do you think it's a NPOV problem that it's an avowedly liberal show? Katr67 (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah -- I'd definitely be singing a different tune if there were 5-10 links there. But as long as there aren't multiple interviews vying for space, I don't see the harm -- and I think it's a service to readers. I don't think it's a problem that the show is unapologetic about its bias -- it's an interview, not reporting. It's kind of rare for a liberal to do a show with a conservative host (though definitely not unheard of.) Anyway, I'm gonna re-add, but I'll keep an eye out for any snowballing collections of linkcruft. -Pete (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorsements
In the interest of disclosure, I'd like to say that I work for the Novick campaign, and as such I do not feel it appropriate for me to work on this article. That said, I believe a section disclosing Novick's endorsements from prominent leaders (former Gov. John Kitzhaber and former Rep. Les AuCoin, to name two) and newspapers (the Medford Mail-Tribune and The Oregonian, to give examples) would be ideal. —Micahbrwn (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Micah, thanks for the disclosure and the clear position. I would tend to agree. We have precedent for including endorsements in some cases in Oregon political articles. Also, my understanding of the Novick campaign is that some of the high-profile endorsements have been considered highly notable, due to the fact that Merkley was considered a clear front-runner several months back. I'd suggest we include any endorsement that has significant coverage from an independent third party. I don't know which these are, but I suspect that Kitzhaber's endorsement has been the subject of some coverage, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Willamette Week notes the Oregonian endorsement in the next week or so. -Pete (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been a week or so since my initial suggestion. Surely that's enough time for the dust to settle after the triple-whammy of endorsements, yeah?  —Micahbrwn (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)