Talk:Tom McMahon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think the last batch of information is vital for any readers who may stumble across this article. It provides possible storyline that readers can view and process for themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BCsix1oh (talk • contribs) 19:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree strongly. Per our policy on biographies of living persons, we need to be very careful to avoid libel and slander of anyone who is a living subject of one of our articles. The only sources for this trash are (1) a political opponent of McMahon, and (2) a political blog, neither of which meets even the most liberal reading of our guidelines regarding reliable sources. I would urge that the material again be removed until a credible source is found for its inclusion; we have been threatened with lawsuits and negative publicity for far less. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Calling it trash show a bias on your part right there. I have read tons of articles on Wikipedia that smear people with no substance contained into it. Would a attached report of the route trace proving the Reading Eagle's involvment be allowed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.33.19.254 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, that's a primary source. We would need a credible news organization, reference work, or other reliable source which indicates not only that (1) this happened, but (2) people noticed and it was a significant event in the life of Tom McMahon. Incidentally, if you see "tons of articles" which are committing similar libel and slander against living people, please drop me a note on my talk page and I will try to clean it up, or you are welcome to do the same yourself. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
What would you consider a credible news organization? Dan Rather, New York Times, World Net Daily? Moveon.org? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.33.19.254 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Me personally? The first two are a definite yes, the other two are suspect but could probably be citable in some circumstances. It's not just about what I think though. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Mayor McMahon is using the Hazleton Law as the platform for his whole statement. Taking out one side removes the neutral point of view in this. The source plainly states that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.78.24.4 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- If this is such a major issue, surely you can find a reliable source (like a local newspaper editorial) so that you can say "The Duckburg Times argued that..." instead of just making your own arguments. This is a place to present concrete facts, not extrapolations and original interpretations of situations. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
There is absolutely no reason to have the entire article focus on one tiny thing that Tom McMahon said. Until the remainder of the article is expanded with context about him, and does not consist entirely of a paragraph about a minor local political issue, this should remain a stub. FCYTravis 00:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Eskog are you from the Reading area? You seem to know quite a bit about the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.33.19.254 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, I'm not from the area. I watchlisted the page when a user was posting copyright violations by pasting in the mayor's whole bio, and so when the latest dispute came up I happened to be around. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The individual who will not sign his name will accuse anyone of being part of a consipiracy if they disagree with him in any way, and refuse after his mind boggling number of attempts to get his own way. Watch out, he might even call you a left wing kook, communist, or terrorist lover if you give him enough time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Berksguy (talk • contribs) 22:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
This is really getting lame. Could you take your local political squabble somewhere else and either (1) help us build an encyclopedia or (2) get out of the way? (ESkog)(Talk) 00:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I want to say that Berksguy is the one that is the kook. He acts as if I am the one causing all of this. When I do edits I use my login. I'm not ashamed to back my views and put my name next to them. However Berksguy needs to realise that other people out there feel the same way, and it is rather silly to think that every user that posts something that does not fit his agenda is me. I do however believe that all of the actions of Mayor McMahon should be displayed good or bad if sourced and that includes his crazy words about supporting Illegal Aliens as was sourced. George W. Bush, Robert Byrd, etc. have tons of sourced actions both good and bad toward those persons, and the same standard should apply to Tom McMahon. After all like ESkog said we should build an encyclopedia, and not propoganda like this article started out as.(mheckman1978}
Berksguy is a political operative for The Reading Eagle who is just trying to protect the political career of Tom McMahon. Currently The Mayor is in quite a bit of trouble.(72.78.181.55}
A political operative? Now that is funny. What "72.78.181.55" is unable to comprehend is that there are citizens of the city and county who are happy with the job McMahon is doing and are tired of morons like "72.78.181.55" who does not even live in the city making comments as to his performance. No charges were filed, the chief and all other law enforcement entities saw no reason to bring any charges against the mayor, and the issue has been laid to rest.(BerksGuy}
What Berksguy fails to mention that the person that filed the complaint against the mayor was put in a room for hours and decided to drop the charges after the trash bill was defeated. Berksguy needs to take his Tom McMahon spin elsewhere, because it does not belong here.(72.78.153.27}
What "72.78.153.27" fails to mention is that he has no proof of anyone being put in a room for hours. He fails to mention that there were no charges to drop, because no charges were ever filed. No spin, just fact. It is also enlightening to note that "72.78.153.27" had the childish nature to make false accusations by editing my personal page accusing me of being an employee of the Reading Eagle, a publication that I despise for misquoting and misrepresenting me in the past. This individual can not accept that anyone who does not work for the paper might have a positive view of the mayor and his adminstration. This individual, as a known loud mouth Conservative, has an ax to grind and continues to use this site to grind out his frustrations..(BerksGuy}
You need to chill out. You are getting crazy pointing to various IPs and saying they are some part of a "conspiracy" is silly. You really need to take your spin elsewhere. The Mayor acted in a way that you don't want to admit, and that is not my problem. The items WERE SOURCED..(unsigned}
The IP in question did edit personal page. The IP in question made it clear that they believe I am a "political operative" of the Reading Eagle. The IP in question matches the one used by an individual who I have had dealings with in the past. This individual is a known Conservative loud mouth here in Berks County. I never stated they were part of any conspiracy. As usual, we have an anonymous coward who spins his own accusations using bits and pieces of information. The mayor did tear down a sign, this is true. I will not deny it, it was in the paper. It can also not be denied that no charges were ever filed, so there were no charges to drop. Your source does not contain all of the facts you were trying to place in this bio. Admit it, you have an a to grind, and you are using this as a forum to do it..(BerksGuy}
Once again you are finger pointing at people who are just pointing out facts. There are several IP addresses editing this article. You need to face facts, and stop crying foul when things don't go your way.(unsigned}
I am pointing out that someone keeps trying to put something into the political career section that has nothing to do with his political career. There are several IPs, but they all happen to be the same person. That is quite easily verifiable if you have the know how..(BerksGuy}
[edit] Blog excerpt
Re: the recent addition and removal of commentary about our anonymous contributor(s) - the content here about Matt Heckman's blog is not really relevant to the discussion about what does and does not belong in the article. If this user becomes problematic in his/her own right, then the appropriate place for such information would be a request for comment or request for arbitration, or perhaps some other dispute resolution method. It doesn't belong here. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I beg to differ. I will although respect your request and not post it again. I will however keep the information on my Usertalk page, as the individual in question has vandalized my talk page on numerous occasions lately. The user has become problematic in my humble opinion and should be dealt with. I do not understand how to begin any of the process above though quite frankly. I think a good compromise has been reached in keeping the information in the Biography, but keeping it out of the Political Career section where it does not belong. (BerksGuy}
Categories: Biography articles of living people | Politics and government work group articles | Stub-Class biography (politics and government) articles | Unknown-priority biography (politics and government) articles | Stub-Class biography articles | Automatically assessed biography articles | Automatically assessed biography (politics and government) articles