Talk:Bob Packwood

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

Reasons for edits[edit]

1.) Excised euphemistic terms

Removed the term "Pro-choice" this is a partisan description used only by supporters of abortion. They aren't "pro-Choice", they are pro-abortion and it's time to use the correct label instead of a self-serving euphemism. Ditto for the term "gun control". The latter doesn't affect criminals, only law-abiding citizens seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights--the latter recently being explicitly affirmed by the Justice Department.

2.) Number of victims

Changed number from 29 to 10. The former number comes from a Time magazine article that is essentially an editorial attacking both Packwood and the Senate.

Noted political science professor of the University of Virginia Larry J. Sabato wrote the article from Washington Post and it was written after the Time article and Packwood's resignation. He lists 10 women. I feel he's a far more reliable source than what was, to reiterate, basically and editorial.

Also, as the Senate never held hearings nor, to my knowledge, was Packwood ever sued for his behavior--let alone criminally prosecuted--we can't know for sure if everyone of the alleged "dozens" of victims were creditable. I think we can trust Prof. Sabato's number to be properly backed up by sources.

3.) Kept the percentages by which Packwood won his last re-election bid. The vote percentage illustrates that a clear majority (nearly 7%) of Oregon voters weren't swayed by the allegations. Admittedly, not all the revelations had come out before election day, but enough information was out there for voters to evaluate and conclude that they wanted him to continue representing them in the Senate.

4.) National Organization for Women-endorsed... rewrote this section to make it more inclusive, since many left-wing groups had long supported Packwood. These days he's what is referred to as a RINO: Republican In Name Only.

5.) This passage:

The sexual abuse side of Packwood's problems, played up in the public media, obscured charges that he encouraged offers of financial assistance from lobbyists and other persons who had a particular interest in legislation or issues that Senator Packwood could influence.

is both unclear and seems to be irrelevant in addition to not being sourced.

Were the alleged solicitations for "financial assistance" for himself? For his campaign? For hush money to pay victims? The passage doesn't indicate and its inclusion in the section on the sexual abuse scandal doesn't seem relevant to me.

6.) Prurient material

The inclusion of sexually explicit details is prurient. Intelligent readers can infer that Packwood included salacious details. And, frankly, who cares about the details of a Packwood doing the matress mambo on the carpet of his office?

It differs greatly from, for example, the incident where West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd referred to "white niggers" in an interview. The lack of outrage from the liberal media and liberal civil rights groups like the NAACP over that issue shows that there is a double standard when it comes to liberals than when it comes to conservatives using racial epithets (e.g. Mel Gibson).

Also paraphrasing a diary entry could be misleading because the words chosen inevitably are the choices of the paraphraser. Another editor might paraphrase differently. If the passage is obscene, should it even be in the article?

Removed text

One paraphrase from Senator Packwood's sex diary read as follows:

After working late, several of the staff stayed to have drinks and socialize. One attractive woman lingered and hovered around me as the others left one by one. When the two of us were alone near midnight, she said she was very impressed to be able to work with such a powerful man. Then we began to touch each other. After kissing and rubbing, with no one else in the office, we dropped to the carpet for an intense session. Once done, still she stayed and talked, not wanting to leave me. Soon we dropped to the floor for a great second round.

Removed text:

However, the diary also, allegedly, chronicled Packwood's sexual encounters. At one point, he reportedly muses over the blessing of having sexual access to a carefully documented number of women, (between ninety and a hundred, overall), through his work in Congress.

Consensual sex is irrelevant. He certainly wasn't expelled from the Senate for it. Including this amounts to little more than gossip.

7.) "Quotations"

I believe that including a section filled with unsourced (save for the last one), out of context quotes violates the Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections policy.

Here's the section:

Quotations

  • "Judgment comes from experience and great judgment comes from bad experience."
  • "I'm apologizing for the conduct that it was alleged that I did." — responding to accusations of sexual harassment.
  • "God, was she a good player. I was so fascinated in watching her bid and play that I could hardly concentrate on her breasts." — comment from his diary on a bridge opponent, later printed in the Washington Post.
  • "Am I sorry? Of course. If I did the things that they said I did. Am I sorry, do I apologize? Yes. But it is time to get on and not look back." — 1995 on a CBS news show after resigning.
  • "All of us, Mr. President, whether we’re in politics or not, have weaknesses. For some, it’s drinking. For others, it’s gambling. For still others, it’s women... Your weakness is credibility..." — New York Times, 11/17/73.

8.) Removed reference to Bob Dole. He's only mentioned once and out of context. The allegations were still just that. The inclusion of the Dole PAC's donation seems like an attempt to suggest Dole either condoned or just didn't care about the sex abuse scandal. There's no evidence of either and it's unfair to former Majority Leader Dole to imply this.

Text removed: Nevertheless, Bob Dole's PAC donated $10,000 to Packwood's defense.

9.) Added footnotes, created References section; removed duplicate link to Time magazine editorial.


Of course the reasons for these edits are my opinion. Drop me a line on my Talk Page if you disagree or agree with me that the article needs further rewrites. If I have time, I'll get around to it. Until then, I believe I have improved the article by tightening it up and removing irrelevant and salacious material.

PainMan 21:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed SNL Parody[edit]

Inclusion of the SNL Parody at this stage in the article mixes fact and fiction. There are more salacious passages in the actual journal, but this is a matter of maintaining a clear difference between what he did write and what he didn't.

Text removed:

Saturday Night Live spoofed the Packwood Diaries, having him end every entry with, "I stuck my tongue down her throat and groped her breasts."[1]

References

  1. ^ Transcript of "Packwood Diaries" Sketch http://snltranscripts.jt.org/93/93fpackwood.phtml

Get You Stories Straight[edit]

Is Bob Packwood the grandson or the great-grandson of William H. Packwood? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.223.137 (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McConnell statement[edit]

Neutrality, the citation you removed as an unreliable deadlink is easily found via the Wayback Machine, and its text is easily found in more reliable sources. However, I agree that the phrasing was problematic. Seems worthy of a talk page note, in any case. -Pete (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could accept restoring it to the Washington Post link, in rephrased form (something like "In February 1999, during the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell made reference to the Packwood case, arguing that Republicans "chose honor" in supporting Packwood's removal even though his seat could be filled by a Democrat." [Cites])
However, wouldn't this material better sit at United States Senate special election in Oregon, 1996? Neutralitytalk 19:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bob Packwood. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is he a former attorney?[edit]

Why state that he is a former attorney? Maybe he is an attorney no longer in practice? Thinker78 (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OE source[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bob Packwood. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Packwood&oldid=1208403737"