Talk:Brad Sherman

---

Untitled

• Wish he'd push to put impeachment back on the table. Nancy has made the wrong call on that one. - Sparky (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Whisleblowing?

• Changed "Whistleblowing" to reduce point of view; I can't find any references to this "martial law" thing except pointing to this one speech. --- Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Committee assignments

Please, stop mixing "committee assignments" higher up the page and pushing Early life sect down the page. This is inappropriate, as per chronological ordering. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement of Potential Conflict of Interest

I am a long-time WP contributor. My interest in editing this page is to maintain NPOV. I do have connections, however, to the congressman and his current opponent, and I want to be sure this is in the open. I believe I can maintain WP standards despite these connections.

My family has a very long history with the Berman family. Over 30 years ago, Howard Berman contributed generously to my mother's campaign for office, and Michael Berman ran her campaign.

For the past decade, Rep. Sherman has been my congressman. I have endorsed his current campaign, and he endorsed my campaign in the election held last month. I have never been part of his campaign or his office and have never had financial ties to him.

I am a member of the executive board of the state Democratic Party, and both congressmen have been very helpful on issues of importance to me, including both of them writing recent letters upon my recommendation to the president, the energy secretary, and the NRC regarding an issue I care about. I like both of them and feel I have a good relationship with both.

I have had no contact with either campaign or congressional office nor with the Democratic Party or other activists regarding updating this page or Mr. Berman's page. I do this purely on my own as a regular WP contributor. --RichardMathews (talk) 08:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit war

Some thoughts on the recent edit war.

While this is a BLP, it is a discussion of a public figure. Sherman's positions on public policy are an important part of what makes him notable, so such discussion is appropriate. Nothing in the additions says anything about whether these positions are good or bad, so NPOV is maintained. They are well-sourced and thus verifiable and not original research.

The paragraphs on civil liberties seem to be perfectly appropriate. These are well-sourced statements on matters of important public policy.

The paragraph on visiting sites of different religions is questionable. It does not seem encyclopedic or particularly important to public policy. I'm leaving it for now, but I would not mind removal.

The paragraph on advocating for religious minorities seems to be perfectly appropriate. It is a well-sourced statement on a matter of important public policy.

The paragraph on Scientology that predates this edit war is questionable. It is not clear from the sources whether this is a legitimate area of controversy. At least it presents the material in a NPOV manner. If the paragraph on visiting religious sites goes, so should this one.

The paragraphs on discrimination seem to be perfectly appropriate. They are well-sourced statements on a matter of important public policy.

I'm only making some small edits to deal with sources. Discussion should be posted here before there are further significant changes.

--RichardMathews (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in that edit war, but have been looking at some of the topics you mentioned. I just removed some stuff that did seem unnecessary, like his votes with the Democratic party. Maybe there are some other news outlets that reported on these, and we can include a deeper meaning and maybe some quotes? Ali or nothin (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Things did seem to settle down a bit after Quebec99 and I did some cleanup. Most of your edits look good to me, but I don't feel that voting with a majority of the party is the right criteria for removal. If there are third party sources that found the votes interesting enough to report on, it is suggestive of being worthwhile to include. If there was a significant minority of the party in disagreement, then listing these votes does define Mr. Sherman beyond giving a party label. I'll look over these and may add some back, but that will probably happen tomorrow.--RichardMathews (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that if a third party news source like the NYT or Politico covered it, then it would be very interesting to involve. If there was an article that covered the reasoning behind the stance or a quote from Sherman, then that would be great. Ali or nothin (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's an article from the Salon.com naming Brad Sherman as one of the Church of Scientology friends in Congress, pointig out he has been instrumental in the letters complaining alledged discrimination of Scientology in some European countries. Salon is basing the relevant part on an article from The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture by Stephen A. Kent, a scolar on "new religious movments". The Salon article should be a good secondary source. Thimbleweed (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Were those sources included before? I thought I remembered seeing them around, but am unsure about when they were removed.Ali or nothin (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Excess content

I have removed a few pieces of content that are still not notable. Because there is so much, I was hoping parties could voice concerns here and everyone can help make the article as thorough as possible with third-party reliable sources. I would be happy to help search news outlets for coverage of some of these topics. Ali or nothin (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• The issue I have is that all of the additions are primary sourced, which is bad. If they cannot be sourced to a newspaper or some other secondary source, then the information should be removed. There's also the problem that some of the additions are worded in a POV manner. Silverseren^C 22:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)