Talk:Wally Herger

comment
My memory is that Wally got a girl pregnant while they were in high school so he married her and she became his first wife.

That is correct. He also avoided service in Vietnam: http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=oid%3A26404

Does anybody know why he is not going to enter the race to succeed Bill Thomas?

revision
I thought that the page had little commentary about his legislative agenda and whatnot. hoping that you all don't take exception to the emendations that I'm making. I'm expanding the biographical sections and including membership on committees and subcommittees. Asday85 06:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopaedic?
Why is Herger's net worth not encyclopaedic, while his church affiliation is?... QuartierLatin1968 01:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC) [For the record, I'm not 165.106.209.107.]


 * Is this really a serious question? Religious affiliation is an essential mainstay of biographical information, whereas "net worth" rarely enters the question unless there is particular and noteworthy writing and criticism on the subject (e.g. Teresa Heinz Kerry, Bill Gates).  I have no problems with the link being present but the insertion is very apparently an attempt by the anon to portray Herger negatively, hence the comments here.  --TJive 02:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's funny how the things that just seem immediately self-evident to me and those that seem self-evident to you are wholly different. In spite of globalization, the internet and the airplane, people's viewpoints remain extraordinarily diverse. So why is it 'negative' exactly that this man has some given amount of wealth? He has a certain class position, everybody has a certain class position; I see no point sweeping the fact under the carpet. (I do, however, think it was very sensible of you to leave in the link.) QuartierLatin1968 [[Image:Red flag waving transparent.png|20px|El bien mas preciado es la libertad]] 18:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ''why is it 'negative' exactly that this man has some given amount of wealth?


 * That is a good question, but unfortunately ill-posed if in my direction.


 * ''everybody has a certain class position; I see no point sweeping the fact under the carpet.


 * Ostensibly....well you will have to excuse me, I am not always up to date on the latest Wiki legalisms and jargon, but at the latest point I understood it to be so, this is not a forum for the class analysis and musings of individual editors. --TJive 00:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert on Wiki legalisms either – however, this person's a US representative, and his tax records are a matter of public record, so I would foresee no legal obstacle. It still seems to me a strange rationale for deleting material. You personally may not apply a class analysis of public officials (neither do I, in any systematic way), but it's a perfectly common procedure in scholarly discourse worldwide. For example, have you heard of Charles Beard's analysis of the framers of the Constitution? Now that's a famous work which many have criticized, but it remains an important point of reference in US historiography. It may well be that modern-day students of US politics may want to compare Beard's investigations for the 1780s with those of the present Congress. At any rate, I don't see how it enriches Wikipedia to remove information that might inform a reader curious about such questions. QuartierLatin1968 [[Image:Red flag waving transparent.png|20px|El bien mas preciado es la libertad]] 05:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There are a number of things which are or may be public record that nonetheless are not considered encyclopedic information - for instance (briefly, off the top of my head), a list or extensive explication of one's voting record, primary campaign donators, the location of his office, a phone number, a mailing address, etc. You cite Charles Beard but should not fail to realize that in its controversy (and wide rejection) that it is tendentious to cite this as precedent for our purposes here.


 * Simply put, I do not object to making the information available via external linking, but do not submit to the anon's body contribution, which in intention is little more than the beginning of a political argument. --TJive 06:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Partisan sounding
I'm sorry, but towards the end this sounds extremely like a press release. Especially the sections "Legislative philosophy", "Legislative goals" and "Current goals". While those may be attributable as his stated intentions, they don't have to be written like a reelection flyer. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC) I agree. It reads like a political brochure being published by an interested but claiming to be disinterested "third party." Still, I don't have the time to waste digging up the dirt on such a bland Republican tool. TheCryingofLot49 (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Reads like campaign advertising.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.11.236 (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This issue has yet to be addressed. It's clearly copypasted directly from his website, and needs to be completely overhauled.

Exactly when did the self-identified and praised "terrorist" retract his statement?
Was it the same day? The same week? After it hit the press? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.11.236 (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Legislative History
The first version of this was clearly GOP propaganda. The second was clearly Democrat propaganda. The article's better off without either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandorin (talk • contribs) 08:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wally Herger. 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/20090203072316/http://sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2002_general/congress.pdf to http://sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2002_general/congress.pdf
 * Added tag to http://sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2004_general/us20reps20all20formatted.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081127061822/http://sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2006_general/congress.pdf to http://sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2006_general/congress.pdf

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) 01:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)