Talk:Harris Miller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Harris Miller article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Origins 2 Changes to article after June 2006 primary 2.1 Removal of material 2.2 Deleting article entirely? 3 Abortion advocate endorsement 4 Concerns about recent expansion of page 5 Response to "Concerns about recent expansion of page" 6 Neutrality

[edit] Origins

FYI - Regarding the origins of this article, Info-Tech-Guy is not with the Webb Campaign, as was implied in the "History" tab. He is, as his name suggests, an extremely upset tech worker. I think the edits to Info-Tech's initial posts were proper. I will also add more material at a later date; perhaps this weekend. Richmond Democrat 20:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I did say that it "looks like" the Webb campaign at one point.[1] I don't know who anyone is here, but I added the neutrality tag because the earlier additions were primarily either attacks on Miller or praise of Webb and I'm not in a position to judge the accuracy of the attacks. The article was getting a little to close to saying "Harris Miller is a lobbyist and everyone hates him." More material is probably all that is needed. --Ajdz 02:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I myself am a Webb supporter, but I think the article as originally posted was over the top and I agree with the edits that were made to bring it back to a more balanced presentation. That being said, there is quite a bit of material about Miller that could be construed as negative from the point of view of Democratic activists. At some point this information will have to be incorporated. I will make certain that it is thoroughly documented and I will post it in here for review before placing it in the main article. 65.246.71.5 14:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Please consider <a href="http://richmonddemocrat.blogspot.com/2006/04/its-official-harris-miller-is.html">this letter</a> as evidence that unions blame Miller for the loss of jobs and oppose him. Should it be included somewhere in Miller's entry? I leave it to you to decide. Richmond Democrat 19:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to article after June 2006 primary

[edit] Removal of material

Now that he's lost the primary, is "Stated goals as senator" needed at all? -- Sholom 00:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not IMO. There's a lot more of the article that can be clipped now, too. Not to put him down, but Harris Miller the former Senate candidate and former ITA president does not warrant more than a couple paragraphs in Wikipedia now. DanielM 03:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As a belated note, on June 14th I removed the campaign section of this article (all text) and moved it to the main campaign article (in the talk section) for further discussion there about its newsworthyness. John Broughton 13:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting article entirely?

This article was nominated for deletion on July 1, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

[edit] Abortion advocate endorsement

Miller was given category, 'Pro-life' people. How would this be so, when he was endoresed by Kate Michelman, the former head of NARAL, the leading abortion rights group? Pro-life assertion is not sourced. Times-Dispatch article on Michelman's endorsement includes the following: "In a conference call with reporters, Michelman, who headed NARAL for almost 20 years, praised Miller's long-term support of abortion rights, day-care programs and health care for women. She said Miller would oppose judges who don't favor women's rights and favor those who do." Dogru144 06:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Good job catching that, I never noticed it myself. For what it's worth, I don't think that appeared in the article until after the primary, so it wouldn't have influenced anyone's vote. DanielM 10:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns about recent expansion of page

It's not clear to me why the anonymous person markedly expanded the page as if the primary were still underway, and adding information that is not really relevant to the Miller entry such as the controversial Webb flyer. I don't know why we need a list of Democratic establishment figures who supported Webb over Miller, and I also question the phrasing that they "campaigned against Miller." They endorsed his opponent; this is different from campaigning against him. None of those people spoke out and said Miller was unfit in any way, it was just they went with the other guy. At any rate the campaign was neatly tied up in a paragraph previously, now we have some bloat. I think it should go back to a paragraph. Any comments? DanielM 04:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to "Concerns about recent expansion of page"

I'd disagree that the flyer isn't relevant. The flyer provides context to Miller’s claim that it was “Anti-Semitic." I suppose reasonable people can disagree, but there are a number of properly sourced comments, including a Washington Post columnist, who says it was not. Candidly, though, I can't find any though that agree it was anti-Semetic. Some of the general election debate has turned on whether the candidates have made ethinic or racially derogatory statements in the past. Shouldn’t people be able to decide for themselves, rather than using the delete button?

As to adding the various Democrat who supported Webb, I sourced the fact this was quite unusual. “Breaking with the general political practice about avoiding becoming involved in party primaries [2].

In more detail the Washington Post says: “It is extremely unusual for a DSCC chairman to endorse a candidate in a contested primary. The move reflects a consensus among national Democrats that Webb -- a former Republican, author, war hero and Navy secretary -- will make a stronger general election candidate than lobbyist and longtime Democratic Party activist Harris Miller.”

It is very unusual and as such critical to understanding how the race turned out. It seems far more relevant than say, that Miller is on the board of the Virginia Opera.

As for comment “campaigned against” is inaccurate, I guess I might argue the point, since it is so unusual for out of state Senators to get involved in primaries. However I’ll concede that “campaigned for his opponent “ sets a more neutral, objective tone.

Finally, there seems to be an implicit assumption in your post that Miller is only relevant as a topic as because he was a candidate. He was a reasonable high profile public figure in tech industry before he ran for office and continues to be after the election. He is looked internationally as a spokesperson for the US IT industry.

Completely unrelated to the Senate race, see these recent stories: http://www.sda-india.com/sda_india/psecom,id,22,site_layout,sdaindia,news,13129,p,0.html

http://www.itworldcanada.com/Pages/Docbase/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=idgml-28e5c6f6-5ec7-4136-996a-ad009c63a9b0

Prior to the race The Times of India quotes an Indian IT official:

"His (Miller's) views are taken seriously by major US IT firms and so we are keen to make a good impression," he said."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-790079,curpg-1.cms

anonymous person 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a lot to respond to, but I will try to address it. As best I can tell you are making the case that the real issue is not the flyer but rather the possibility that Miller made a baseless claim of antisemitism. However I followed the primary campaign news closely at the time and I don't recall at all that there was any particular controversy about this or that this question was examined by the news media (it may have been mentioned by a skeptical columnist or something like that). There were questions about the flyer itself, ie. "is the flyer antisemitic?" However that's not what you are saying be covered here in the Miller Wikipedia article. You appear to want to cover Miller's characterization of the flyer and counterpoint it. I think it's somewhat of an artificial exercise to do so, because nobody really did it at the time. It's something of a stretch to say that this is relevant for the article, I think it is not.

You want to include not only that the national Democratic figures endorsed him (which was already there), but that it was unusual for them to do so. I can see that this is appropriate, but it can be done in a to-the-point and brief way.

I've no attachment to the bit about him being on the board of the Virginia Opera. There is no implicit assumption on my part that Miller is only relevant because he ran as a candidate, no idea why you would say that. I think that the characteristics of the man's overall career and life and family background as well as candidacy are relevant for the article. DanielM 10:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You raise good points. Just to add another data point: I live in Virginia and followed the race closely. Indeed the entirety of the commentary during the race revolved around one major issue: electibility. Harris, who seemed more mainstream within the Dem party vs Webb, who is way more conservative than most Dems, but who seemed to stand a better chance against incumbent Allen. This is (obviously) why the DSCC endorsed Webb. I might add, too, that not only did other issue not make the radar screen, the entire election was almost under the radar. The turnout was an anemic 3.45%. Almost two million voted for governer in 2005, only 155,000 voted in this primary. (Yes, primaries get fewer votes, but this was pretty small even by those standards) As far as the anti-semitism issue, I knew nothing about it until I read it this week on this page. I'm not sure it warrants any attention at all. -- Sholom 14:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sholom, DanielM - I don't even live in Virginia, and I was familiar with the flyer controversy. I went back to my edit - it had seven citations to it - including major newspapers and a comment from Larry Sabato. (Not "Not Larry" the blogger, but Sabato.) I just did a Google search for "Harris Miller" and "caricature" and came up with 3,700 hits, including a number of other newspaper accounts.

While I don't think anything I added reflected either favorably or unfavorably on Jim Webb, I do recognize that you Virginans are in the middle of a contentious Senate race. So I'd propose waiting to after the election to revisit the question in a less charged environment.

The other changes, handling the Democratic endorsements of Webb, seem quite reasonable. Thank you.

anonymous person 2 November 2006 (UTC)207.168.215.211 17:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

Just doing research on the 2006 Senate Elections and to my surprise,

"Miller is a big supporter of the H1-B visas for bringing low skilled engineers into the US to eliminate American jobs. He is actively lobbying for and promoting the transfer of US jobs and technology to China."

appears, unverified, in the article. Surely a course of action would be either a/ introduce a heading of "Criticisms", or, b/ generally clean up the article and promote neutrality. I don't know enough about Virginian politics to verify the claim myself -- anyone else?

K.R. Allen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.30.24.220 (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

I don't like the text which is unsourced and should be deleted. It is slanted and over-simplified. But the charges that he promoted outsourcing of jobs as a lobbyist are widespread and likely have some validity. In accordance with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons I am going to delete this negative, questionable, unsourced text, but I hope someone finds the time to write about this legitimate question of whether Miller's lobbying actions harmed American workers. DanielM

Herman Miller’s work for increasing H1-B visas is an important aspect of Miller’s career and influence. DanielM’s insistence on removing mention and references to Miller’s controversial stand and actions makes me suspicious that he is an apologist for Miller. A category for Miller’s important H1-B position should be added. wfoon

I'm not worried that you suggest I am an apologist because I explained my reasons clearly above and people can read that. It just reflects poorly on you to say such things, wfoon. If you want to have text that says things like "He is actively lobbying for and promoting the transfer of US jobs and technology to China" then you need to properly source it, this is Wikipedia policy. DanielM 00:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pulling down the "check for neutrality" banner because Miller's arguably anti-American-worker lobbying actions are referred in three sections of the article. It's impossible to claim that the article whitewashes them. In fact the article may be unduly negative. DanielM 12:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)