Talk:Terry McAuliffe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.



Contents

[edit] Entrepreneuring

"He has successfully started over two-dozen companies in the fields of banking, insurance, marketing, and real estate."

The names of these companies with brief descriptions/wikipedia links would be helpful here. 128.211.202.117 04:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Anyone have a picture that doesn't make him look like a vampire? ~ Rollo44 04:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Controversey's"

I corrected the correction of spelling and added both NPOV and unsourced tags. This whole section looks like it was ripped straight from some conservative blog. 67.187.234.66 09:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

on further searching i found the section to be plagiarized from http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york071602.asp. the information contained in the article might be relevant, but i don't have a desire to put in the effort to research it. 67.187.234.66 09:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln Bedroom controversy and Coffeegate

Lincoln Bedroom controversy and Coffeegate pages were deleted by NPOV (calling them attack pages). Below are the CNN Ref. links to the info that was on these two pages. CNN The Lincoln Bedroom Guest List CNN, Lincoln Bedroom Guests Gave $5.4 Million Telecine Guy 10:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There was never any "there" there re the so-called lincoln bedroom controversy. repubs were never able to show any ethical lapse or criminal activity. they abruptly halted cong. hearings once they proved to be a dud. since this is bio on living person, i think you should be very cautions re partisan, personal attacks. Journalist1983 09:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The CNN report differs with you.Telecine Guy 04:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides, "Coffeegate" sounds really stupid, and it's so hackneyed to add a "gate" to every minor infraction, especially considering Watergate was a grave threat to our Constitutional system. --David Shankbone 12:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"minor infraction" that is why a page is needed, you have no facts. What name would you like? The Press also called it "Coffee for Cash". Telecine Guy 04:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there is such thing as "coffeegate." you didn't source it, and even if you had, then you didn't deal with the issue in a fair manner. if you want to have an open discussion on the broader issue on this page or on a dispute page, then we can do that. i am certain, though, that if the wikipedia community decides to keep in the reference to the alleged controversies, then we are going to have to say that nothing ever came of it and that critics charged it was nothing more than a partisan witch hunt. If you want to propose language below that is fair, then I urge you to do that. Journalist1983 13:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Did you read th CNN link ref? The CNN report is clear and about Terry's role in selling the coffees and Lincoln Bedroom

Below is a list of the "attack" rules here. No attacks are used here talking about the CNN report on Lincoln Bedroom controversy and Coffeegate - Cash for Coffee. Just becuase you do not like something you cannot say it is an attack or that there is no such thing.

  • Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against disabled people) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.

None used

  • Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.

None used

  • Threats of legal action.

None used

  • Threats of violence, particularly death threats.

None used

  • Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages.

None used

  • Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why.

None used

No Attacks are here. Telecine Guy 23:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I went ahead and included the text and added balance to make clear that there was never any wrongdoing proven. I don't think wikipedia should be a place to discuss unproven, baseless political charges; while we might disagree on that point, i am certain you will agree that for a living person, the fact there was never any wrongdoing proven needs to be made clear. Journalist1983 03:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you ! Your edit looks very good, You are value to Wikipedia! I only add the CNN refs. Telecine Guy 19:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Wish you would have left well-enough alone and not tried to add more links on this non-issue. My edits were meant to be a compromise, based in part on your content above. But I disagreed with their inclusion (see above "I don't think wikipedia should be a place to discuss unproven, baseless political charges"), a position mangos08 apparently shares. I re-read your text above re "attacks" and researched it. You were quoting from a portion of wikipedia that deals with attacks among editors. No one ever accused you of attacking editors; hence the inclusion of the material above, which I have noted you're fond of doing re other entries, is irrelevant to this discussion and should be removed. Finally, you cited CNN. I went ahead and read the links you cite, and I completely disagree with your conclusion. In fact, I think the material you offer supports the premise that this was a partisan witch hunt from the beginning, not worthy of dredging up for political points in an encyclopedia. Since you were citing support from an irrelevant section; since the CNN material you supplied does nothing but support the conclusion there was never a case here, then I believe for a living person we should err on the side of caution and I removed the compromise text and the links. Journalist1983 03:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Picking your one Time Ref is a compromise? I did not touch your text. Pick one of the four CNN Ref I listed would be a compromise. Picking your one Times ref is not.Telecine Guy 05:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I was wrong to include it, and did so only reluctantly and based on text you misrepesented. Why don't you include the fact that he once confused musician paul simon with senator paul simon? This issue might be relevant on a bio that is several pages long; it does not rise to the level of a wikipedia article. Why don't you insert a reference into repubs who held the hearing that wasted time?

[edit] trivia section

Ok, so the continual removal of the reference Rush Limbaugh makes to Mr. McAuliffe as "The Punk" needs to stop. The Trivia section as listed provides a factual description of the point, and is not only sourced, but also links to a separate Wiki on Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show. The comment may be boorish, to be sure, but we're not in the business of policing political bias—the fact remains that Mr. Limbaugh does frequently make such reference to Mr. McAuliffe, and I see it no differently than if a prominent liberal were to make such a well-known comment on President Bush (and said comment appeared in Mr. Bush's article). You don't have to agree with the comment (I do not, myself), but it is inappropriate to remove it from this Wiki. User:Macslacker 04:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia discourages the use of trivia sections, whether true or not. See WP:TRIV. In this case, you can put your Rush stuff up on the Rush page, as you already did, but what Rush says about McAuliffe is not WP:NPOV. Bios of living people have to have higher standards. IF you wanted to be fair, then you would have to add what McAuliffe said about Rush in his book on the McAuliffe page, and then add this content to the Rush page. That would be balanced at least. But even if you did that, Rush is not worthy of adding to this bio. Journalist1983 07:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the comment as it was written was not NPOV - it was a sourced statement of record, no more or less. Had it been written as "Terry McAuliffe is a punk, just like Rush Limbaugh says on his radio show", then your argument would have merit but in this case here, the comment was most certainly written in NPOV. And as for any "balance" involved between Messrs. Limbaugh and McAuliffe: As you claim to be aware of Mr. McAuliffe's corresponding commentary on Mr. Limbaugh (which I'd agree would make sense to include on Mr. Limbaugh's page, and I do not have knowledge of those comments myself), then you would have better served the Wiki community by adding that information to Mr. Limbaugh's Wiki--instead, you chose to delete the information listed here, which serves to decrease overall knowledge (it can certainly be argued that adding to Mr. Limbaugh's page would have served to increase overall knowledge). Finally, although no weight or bias is given in the comment as it was listed, you noted that WikiPedia discourages the "Trivia" heading. You could then have re-worked the heading into something more apropo to describe the controversial nature of Mr. McAuliffe's role in the political process. This comment serves to illustrate the stark political differences between Messrs. McAuliffe and Limbaugh, and it did so without bias--leave it up the the reader to make up his/her own mind on its actual value! Macslacker 18:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have to side with User: Journalist 1983 on this issue, and have two comments: one general and one specific. General comment: Wikipedia discourages the use of trivia sections. That's something that both contributors above acknowledge. Specific comment: I don't see where putting in someones bio that someone else has called him or her a name is particularly relevant. People have called me names before but I don't think it defines who I am or what I've done. I know that a lot of Americans regard McAuliffe as a political hack, and it can be tempting to put stuff like this in the bio of someone who has spent much of his life in or near the eye of the political storm, but remaining true to Wikipedia's NPOV concept is more important.--Hokeman 19:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hokeman. This is a bio about McAuliffe. Rush doesn't get an insert on every Democrat in Wikipedia any more than McAuliffe should get an insert on every Republican (and I would defend the notion that McAuliffe's views on Rush doesn't merit inclusion on Limbaugh's bio). Wikipedia is not a name-calling resource.

McAuliffe calls Limbaugh numerous names in his book, including a "world class hypocrite" (see p274 of What a Party!).

And if you want to put Limbaugh's analysis, how about a quote about what Bill Clinton calls McAuliffe? How about what Dick Gephardt says about him? If you're going to even get into this line of discussion, then you should be very fair. But you could see what a waste of databytes this would turn into.

Even if the mcauliffe article were 10 times longer this wouldn't rise to inclusive material.

You can put all the stuff you want on Rush's articles (he has several, including one about him, his show and his sayings), but this is a bio about mcauliffe, and petty name calling from a political opponent, even if you're citing someone else, has no place in this article. Journalist1983 00:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global Crossing

Any reason Global Crossing isn't mentioned? It's like not mentioning Chappaquiddick on Teddie's profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.249.133 (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

yes. There has never been anything unethical, immmoral, illegal ever alleged about his investment in Global Crossing. It's merely an issue that detractors, usually Republicans, want to create when they have run out of talking about substantive political issues. His side is he has made lots of investments that lost money. Why do people want to focus on the one that made money? Negative politics of course. In the case of a living person, Wikipedia errs on the side of caution. If you feel he has done something illegal or unethical, go ahead and comment below and we can discuss. Making money in this country is not against the law. Journalist1983 13:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd. If you understand Wall Street, you'd see how Terry's good forture in getting the pre-IPO shares was related to telecom deregluation, and Clinton's help. Terry's selling with the founds before March 2000, when the stock was cut in half shows he was being guided by insiders. Insiders lost a case brought by employees. The high handed fake neurtral language masked apology for immoral, unethical and illegal trading. Just because Clinton's SEC did not bust Terry and Global Crossing founders does not mean it was legal. Wake up. Fred Friendly is rolling in his grave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.137.161 (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What's your evidence for "immoral, unethical and illegal trading"? Journalist1983 (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Post-convention bounce

(transferred from user talk pages)

As for the 20-point bounce, can you tell me where you're looking on that page? In any case, I think we need to cite the poll specifically unless this was also the case for other polls. Thanks, -- Shunpiker (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(Journalist1983's response deleted per Journalist1983.)
Hi Journalist, it sounds like you're a busy person -- I'm not asking you to do any research you don't want to do. But it's not accurate to say "polls" when all you have provided is a single poll. Perhaps other polls agreed with the Washington-Post ABC Poll. But unless a reference is provided, that's conjecture. Polls often disagree wildly.
I also do not think that "20 points" is a fair way to describe the change in the poll: Many people would not describe a change from 43% to 50% as a "20-point bounce" -- and even when you add the delta of the opponent's numbers (52% to 45%) you are still only looking at a change from 9 points behind to 5 points ahead, i.e. 14 points. If a number is used that is different from the ones that actually appear in the source, I think it is important -- in the service of verifiability -- that the means of calculating the number are made explicit, i.e. "the Democratic ticket received a bounce in the polls, overcoming a 9 point deficit to lead the Republican ticket by 5 points" or even "the Democratic ticket received a 14-point bounce in the polls relative to the Republican ticket".
If you'd like to take a crack at either of these issues, please do. In the mean time, I'm tagging the section as disputed. -- Shunpiker (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. CNN described the post-convention polls as showing "an eight-point convention bounce". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shunpiker (talk • contribs) 03:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sourced poll says on 8/20/00, Gore/Bush at 50/45. On 8/6/00, same source showed 40/54. In a two-week period, Gore went from 14pts down to 5 pts up. That's a 19pt movement. I agree that one can play with the numbers and reinterpret. I have removed your box and have added "significant."Journalist1983 (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I see no problem with describing the bounce as "significant". -- Shunpiker (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome! Per your remarks above, I am a busy person, you are quite right, but apparently you have plenty of time on your hands. Good for you! I am glad you can spend so much effort making wrong edits that others have to mop up. Also, I think it's bad policy to bring discussions from user pages onto articles. They were put on user pages for a reason and written that way. Mostly, I doubt anyone cares over this absurd issue above. I certainly never gave you permission to move my comments here. But again, you seem to have plenty of time.Journalist1983 (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to offend you, but I think it's important to leave a clear record of how controversies in an article have been handled, as they have a way of coming up again. I've made plenty of mistakes on Wikipedia -- but as I understand it, keeping each other honest and mopping up where need be is how neutrality and accuracy are maintained here. Please consider the possibility that from time to time, some of your own edits might be considered "wrong" and might benefit from another editor's correction. -- Shunpiker (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

GoldDragon -- Hi. You might be aware that WP:living persons, cited at the top of this talk page states:

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion [emphasis added], from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.[2]
Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"

McAuliffe is not only a living person, but he is not an elected official, and we should be very conservative in repeating partisan and unsourced charges.

Here was some of your text:

"However, the Democrats lost House and Senate seats in the 2002 and 2004 Congressional elections, while their Democratic nominee narrowly lost the 2004 presidential election. In 2002, McAuliffe drew some controversy when he announced that he would not channel funds towards Carl McCall's campaign for Governor of New York. Congressman Charles B. Rangel protested that this would alienate the black vote and McAuliffe reversed himself. McCall was defeated by a large margin. McAuliffe did not seek re-election as DNC chair in January 2005."

First, the DNC is not the lead for congressional races or gubernatorial races, and is not viewed as responsible for their outcomes. Perhaps you are not familiar with our political system. Second, none of this is sourced. Third, why is this tidbit even relevant? Even if you can source this and prove your point, it's not relevant in a short bio. Finally, the sentence that McAuliffe did not seek reelection implies that it's normal to do that. Again, you might not be familiar with our political system, but DNC chairs seldom extend beyond four-year terms, esp. when the party does not hold the WH. So why tie it in with the previous text? It looks as if you are not writing from a npvo, and you're implying that he didn't run for election over this particular race, which is totally inaccurate. If you disagree, pls. find a source which states he didn't run for reelection because of this issue. Good luck.

You other edits were also problematic.

If you want to discuss personal attacks on the talk page, then let's do it one attack at a time and we'll reach consensus on NPOV. In the future, pls. err on the side of caution when putting negative material on living persons. Kind regards, Journalist1983 (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Journalist1983, I think you mean to address your comments to GoldDragon, whose edits you reverted: I haven't edited this article for a month, although it is still on my watchlist. But just so you know: I think that the article could benefit from a greater diversity of opinion than is currently represented. And I think that GoldDragon has a legitimate grievance about the reverts. The Wikipedia policy on edit warring says:

A content revert is an intentional reversal of the changes made in good faith by another editor, rather than improving upon the edit or working with the editor to resolve the dispute; it is not to be taken lightly.

If you have disagreements with other editors on this or any other article, you need to consider more collaborative measures before you make wholesale reverts. If you "don't have enough hours in the day to examine what was wrong" with GoldDragon's edits, then you have no business reverting them. That's not WP:BLP; that's just prejudice. -- Shunpiker (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC) (Note: Journalist1983's comment above was addressed to me when I wrote this. Shunpiker (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC))
As stated, accept my apologies. Never meant to mention you, and I quickly caught the mistake. Cheers, Journalist1983 (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
No worries. -- Shunpiker (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I agreed with your comment, and changed to reflect better tone.Journalist1983 (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


I agree with Shunpiker, especially as it looks as though Journalist1983 blanket-reverted it without paying any attention. I think that its an attempt to cover up, especially his business investments.

Furthermore, while the material is negative, it is not a personal attack, it is not POV (though I am open to suggestions to working on it), and furthermore, it is sourced. Journalist1983's preferred account reads like one from the DNC website or something; would we want Dick Cheney's wikipedia entry to ready like his "official" White House bio?

Howard Dean did take some credit for the 2006 midterm elections, so the 2002 and 2004 elections should be mentioned somewhat. That is also considering that someone (hint, hint) went to great lengths to mention that McAuliffe's DNC fundraising exceeded the RNC. I did not actually state that McAullife stepped down because of the 2004 elections, I stated that he stepped down after the 2004 elections. GoldDragon (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

GD--What does "hint hint" mean? if you are suggesting i said that, then prove it. If you want to work on NPOV language, then pls. do it on the talk page. There is no reason to mention he didn't seek reelection since no one does. Tell me the last DNC chair that sought reelection after a four-year term. (Just being true doesn't warrant putting it on an encyclopedia article.) Again, perhaps you are not familiar with our political system. Kind regards, Journalist1983 (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If the DNC relection was the only issue you have a gripe with, I've reworded it. But you can't just label his business activities as a POV attack, its properly sourced. If you make any further reverts, I will consider this vandalism. GoldDragon (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not the only issue, but I am glad you see my point. FYI, WP policy insists that for living persons we err on the side of caution, stating that even questionable material should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. If you want to call out a discussion and engage in a line-by-line analysis on your edits, I am happy to participate constructively in that. But in the meantime, absent a consensus among editors about a living person who is not an elected official, in a highly contentious time in American political history, it prudent to revert one-sided, non NPOV content.Journalist1983 (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The material is not questionable, though it might be controversial, as it was reported in the New York Times and National Review. WP BLP refers to rumours, particularly unsourced. GoldDragon (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous" First of all, its well sourced. Second, it may be negative but not libellous. GoldDragon (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I took a stab at rewriting the "Controversies" section. I agree that there were problems in the writing before, but I also think that the McAuliffe page is incomplete without a mention of some matters that he has been criticized for. Please flag any sections that you think could use further attention. Thanks -- Shunpiker (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the global crossing is much, much better, and i appreciate the effort. And am open to a further discussion on it, although i must say the assessment is so fair and balanced that it proves my point -- this a partisan attack that never had any beef behind it, and i am not sure it's worthy of WP inclusion. No wrongdoing is even alleged. It's not illegal or unethical to make money. Also, the $18 million number is completely unsourceable. Let me know if you have seen his 1040 for that year. as far as i am aware, he has not commented on the number. I am aware that he has commented that he's made lots of investments that lost money, but nobody ever asks him about those investments.
I don't get the moore thing. he wasn't named as a plaintiff; no wrongdoing was alleged. That's not even relevant to his biography unless you can articulate what wrongdoing he did or at least was accused of doing.
the New York stuff is so obscure i don't think it's even on the Republicans' top ten hit parade about mcauliffe. Again, I intend to keep reverting, per WP:living persons, till we work this out on a talk page. If you want to propose text that includes the global crossing and anything else others think is fair game, pls. do so on this page. I know you think some criticism is merited just, well, just because I guess. But he's not an elected official and he's not been even accused of wrongdoing. If other alleged controversies are as well done as your global crossing, and brief (controversies should not dwarf the article, which they do now), then let's have a go at it below and see what consensus, if any, we can achieve. Journalist1983 (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Journalist1983 for keeping an open mind. That said: You need to get out of the habit of reverting the article every time that you don't completely agree with someone else's contributions. That's not how Wikipedia works. I have restored my edits. If you'd like to make incremental changes or challenges -- be my guest! Really. We've worked out disagreements before and I think we can do it again. But lay off the reverts. If you obliterate good faith contributions by others, you're running afoul of the rules, and you will be held accountable. -- Shunpiker (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

The "Global Crossing" section seems to be written in such a way as to clearly imply that Terry McAuliffe committed insider trading. The quote that follows reinforces this perception, implying that McAuliffe is a robber-baron capitalist. Certainly, such presentation is against the spirit of our policy on living persons and may even be considered an improper synthesis. If the sources make such claims, the article should clearly and succinctly relate who is saying what. If not, the statements at the very least be rewritten to properly represent what the sources report, in context and with an appropriate tone. The "Herman v. Moore" section seems geared towards creating the same perception of the subject. Again, we need to be sure to stick closely to the sources and attribute any allegations to their sources. Additionally, it should be considered whether or not such material should be discussed in the article based on the balance of references. Vassyana (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

From Vassayana's comments, I agree that it is important for any discussion of Global Crossing or Herman v. Moore to: 1.) Use sourced statements to show how these matters caused McAuliffe to come under scrutiny == rather than just implying that he is worthy of scrutiny; 2.) Include a source that discusses these matters within a larger profile of McAuliffe -- to show that the matters are not being given undue weight. Based on these unresolved issues, I am withdrawing the "controversies" section as currently written, though I would be glad to collaborate on restoring references to Global Crossing or Herman v. Moore if it can be done in such a way that answers Vassayana's critique. -- Shunpiker (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Both incidents came under scrutiny because of how McAuliffe criticized the Republicans for their corporate reform efforts in the wake of Enron and Harken Energy. Commentators at National Review and Business Week then pointed out the hypocrositiy. What we could do is elaborate on McAuliffe's initial criticism. GoldDragon (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

Enough. WP:living persons states: An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". This material is subjective at best and until there is a consensus we should act in good faith to do no harm. In this case, no one has even alleged wrongdoing, and if the so-called controversies are included at all they need to be fair and balanced. As already made clear, making money isn't against the law; issues such as global crossing and the rest were never even investigated or suggested as unethical or criminal. The most that is worthy of noting is that opponents have accused him of many things, but none of it has ever amounted to anything. I have put a NPOV tag on this, and ask editors to use restraint and not enter into edit wars until this issue is resolved. Thank you for respecting this process. Journalist1983 (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Do no harm" applies when it is unsourced and libelous. However, the objections of Vassyana and Shunpiker regarding undue weight, I am making efforts to address. GoldDragon (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC).

"Do no harm" is a medical moniker. It means don't do harm till you're sure, in this case till we have consensus. Out of respect for your position, I put a NPOV tag. Pls. keep the article as it was till this issue is resolved.Journalist1983 (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You've said the same thing over and over again. You don't have support for your "do no harm" position. GoldDragon (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't need support. It's a rule. If you want to work on draft on talk page, i will work with you.Journalist1983 (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


Shunpiker does not have a problem with the material, other than undue weight, and I am working to address the later issue. Nonetheless, this does not violate the "do no harm" rule which is for addressing unsourced libellous content. Nor is it necessary for it to have to go through the talk page first, just because you have an opinion that it should not be allowed.

I'll repeat the advice from Shunpiker again: You need to get out of the habit of reverting the article every time that you don't completely agree with someone else's contributions. That's not how Wikipedia works. I have restored my edits. If you'd like to make incremental changes or challenges -- be my guest! Really. We've worked out disagreements before and I think we can do it again. But lay off the reverts. If you obliterate good faith contributions by others, you're running afoul of the rules, and you will be held accountable.

Most of the material was revised by Shunpiker, do you have any suggestions? GoldDragon (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


i have lots of suggestions, but it isn't productive to engage in a discussion unless we are discussing instead of reverting. WP is not a democracy -- your two votes doesn't mean you're right. it is a consensus product based on rules. if you stop reverting i will be pleased to discuss and will be pleased to encourage others. i offered you a way to do this by putting a NPOV box on it, but you don't seem to want to discuss, just rv.Journalist1983 (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Having a NPOV tag with the material will have new readers see that the section is not perfect but it can be improved. However, just an NPOV tag without anything will give the impression that the tag itself is redundant. While we are playing by the rules, you are breaking them and others less forgiving may consider this as vandalism. I won't consider your offer, nor any meaningful discussion, unless you stop reverting. GoldDragon (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I regret we disagree. But my position is you are the vandal -- the article looks like a Republican hatchet job, and I don't think that's what WP is all about. I believe you are the one who should stop reverting till it gets worked out, on account of this is a living person. If you don't like the tag, then revert to last version and remove the tag. I tried to work out a compromise process, but you have been unwilling to do so. Journalist1983 (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding material that is sourced is not vandalism, whether it may be positive or negative. It is clearly not irrelevant, though the undue weight concerns may apply (which is why the NPOV tag is there to mark that section), but I do not feel that the material should be kept off the page while we debate. So far, I have yet to see any attempt at compromise from you since you just keep reverting, while Shunpiker has tried to make the language more neutral. GoldDragon (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not my job to clean up your mess. You clean it up. Journalist1983 (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Global Crossing" rewrite

I took another stab at rewriting the "Global Crossing" section, using a new set of sources. Here's what I hoped to address with my revision:

  • The previous version of the section leaned too heavily on partisan publications (e.g. National Review, Judicial Watch, Human Events).
  • I identified explicit sources for the criticism McAuliffe has received in connection with Global Crossing.
  • I tried to provide a breadth of references to show that a the topic of Global Crossing deserves to be addressed within the context of McAuliffe's career. I think Perlstein's discussion of Global Crossing within the context of a review of McAuliffe's memoir makes this point succinctly. The fact that McAuliffe himself addressed the matter in his memoir is an additional indicator.

Your feedback is welcome. I think the article could now benefit from a similar reworking of the "Herman v. Moore" section, as well as some more attention to the less contentious details of McAuliffe's career. -- Shunpiker (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edits are poor attempts to balance the article. You are still using blatant biased sources. There is nothing even alleged that is unethical or illegal. This comes off as a partisan attack, and it has no place in Wikipedia. Journalist1983 (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

1983, I don't understand how The New York Times, CNN, and the International Herald Tribune could be construed as "blatant biased sources." If you think that I have misrepresented what these sources reported, I'd be glad to work with you on the specifics. Well, that is, I'd be glad if you'd consider refraining from describing my edits as "wrong" and "poor". If you continue to use that kind of tone, I'll work with you anyway, but I'll enjoy the process a lot less. -- Shunpiker (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Your conduct is not conducive to working in collaboration. you have not agreed to a process unless your edits -- your way -- stand while the process unfolds. That is not how contentious material is supposed to be resolved on WP, and I have warned you repeatedly re this. I will engage with you when (a) you remove contentious material and resolve it on a talk page, and (b) when you go to william saffire's article and put down criticisms mcauliffe has made re him; same with huffington. otherwise, you appear to be engaged in a partisan attack, which i am certain is not your intent.Journalist1983 (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

1983, I object to broad and indiscriminate reverts, but I have consistently supported and encouraged a cooperative process of incremental editing. At this point, I'd like to suggest that we make a request for informal mediation. If that fails to bring consensus, and you'd like to make a request for formal mediation, I would support that as well. -- Shunpiker (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Regrettably, Dragon's sincerity is laughable. "incremental editing"? Chortle. As in Dragon and you make one-sided partisan attacks and then tweak them to mask their real purpose. Note Dragon's comment above: "While we are playing by the rules, you are breaking them and others less forgiving may consider this as vandalism. I won't consider your offer, nor any meaningful discussion, unless you stop reverting." How is he playing by the rules but I am not? He removed a box without asking, pretending as if it was only one section that had been messed with. I stopped reverting as he and you requested, yet your reverts and his keep going. Nor does Dragon appear to be "considering my offer," as promised above. Piker, you put a warning box on my talk page but didn't on his. How fair are you really. You are always welcome to do whatever you want. As has been my position, Dragon added the one-sided, absurd partisan attack content and he should fix it and you should support the position to remove it pending discussion.Journalist1983 (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi 1983, I'm sorry that you don't see my contributions as made in good faith. For what it's worth, it wasn't GoldDragon who "removed a box without asking, pretending as if it was only one section that had been messed with" -- I changed the "disputed" tag to "disputed-section," and I did it because the tag had been applied to a section of the article rather than the top, so I assumed that's what you meant. I see that you have changed the tag back to "disputed" and moved it to the top of the article. That's fine. I second your right to dispute the whole article.
GoldDragon has not been reverting other people's edits to the article -- he has only been un-reverting reverts to his edits. He has also shown himself willing to discuss changes to the article without (un-)reverting. So have you, but that wasn't clear to me when I issued the warning. I didn't do it to offend you, but to give you a fair notice that you were running up against the 3 revert rule.
I agree with you that the first version of the section on Global Crossing had serious problems. After it had been reverted back and forth, I joined in to fix some of the most glaring issues. On receiving a third opinion, I saw that it would take more work and I withdrew my edits. When I found some time, I researched and rewrote the section from scratch, with the goals of: 1.) establishing that McAuliffe received notable scrutiny for his relationship with Global Crossing; 2.) taking care not imply anything beyond what is explicit in the sources about McAuliffe's relationship with Global Crossing.
I think there's more work to be done, but I don't see how it helps to remove the whole section while we do that work. I think that there are adequate sources to show that there has been considerable attention to McAuliffe's relationship with Global Crossing in the mainstream press, and that the magnitude of his business interest (a profit that has been estimated from $9 to $18 million dollars) along with the possible impact on his political activity (as noted by Frank Rich and Rick Perlstein) make this a notable episode in McAuliffe's career and public life. I agree with you that McAuliffe has not been charged with illegal or unethical activity in respect to Global Crossing, and if that's not clear from the way that the section is currently written, we should find a way to make it clear. But illegal or unethical conduct is not necessary to make this matter notable. It's also worth pointing out that just because a controversy is exploited for partisan gain, that doesn't make it un-notable. Any political scandal invariably receives more attention from the faction which has not been compromised.
I sincerely appreciate your willingness to engage in discussion. I understand that you don't feel that your objections are being met, and I'd like to do my part to address that. Are there any steps listed under dispute resolution that you feel would help to make your case? -- Shunpiker (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Piker, I appreciate by a matter on minutes I scraped the 3-revert rule. Good catch, judge. Give me a break. You know the rule applies to ONGOING reverts too. Let me know if you think it's ok keep reverting as long as it's not 3 times in 24 hrs. What a putz move that was. Until you notice Dragon, I don't see you as fair or impartial. I have told you my position, and I am tired of repeating it. In the case of a living person, disputes should be worked out on talk page, and I am not going to get into the laughable lapses on the article while the partisan attacks sit there. Journalist1983 (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

1983, I agree with you about ongoing reverts -- the policy on edit warring is clear that the 3RR rule is "not intended as an exemption for all conduct that stays under the threshold". That's what you mean by "ongoing reverts," right? The policy forbids "a pattern of isolated blind reverts as a first resort in response to disagreeable edits". I think that's been a problem in this article, and I'd like to see it end.
If I understand you correctly, your position is that you're not willing to discuss your specific differences with the material as long as it appears in the article. Is that correct? -- Shunpiker (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
If you want to see the reverts end, then post your warning on everyone who has been reverting. this process started out with you making overtures to dragon. you can't be trusted as a fair person till you warn dragon. what are you waiting for? Journalist1983 (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1983, I don't understand what you see as "overtures to dragon". As far as I can tell, this process started when you confused me with GoldDragon, which was odd, because I hadn't edited the page for a month, and even then my quibbles were minor and I think we came to a reasonable compromise.
If you think GoldDragon ought to be warned for something, you have the same right to issue a warning that I do -- although it's worth noting that he hasn't edited the article or the talk page for more than two weeks now. I disagree with some of the content he posted -- and I discussed those differences. But I didn't see him reverting others' contributions to the article. I also saw him using the talk page as an alternative to making reverts of any kind. I'm sorry if you don't trust me as a "fair person", but I'm not going to do anything that I would consider unfair to bargain for that trust.
What I can offer to you is my full cooperation in any of Wikipedia's processes for dispute resolution. If you don't think I am fair, let's bring in a mediator. I'll make the request myself if you like, or second your request. -- Shunpiker (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Journalist1983. In the case of a living person, disputes should be worked out on a talk page. On that note, the Global Crossing and Herman Moore sections are completely inaccurate. I am going to delete them and hope they are not added back or action will be taken. Mochi08Mochi08 (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mochi08, welcome to Wikipedia. You seem to know your way around. You're not related by any chance to Mangos2008, are you? I reverted the deletion of the section when I saw there was no edit summary (something else in common with Mangos2008), but I didn't see Mochi's explanation here, so my edit summary is in error. I stand by the edit, however.
I'm not satisfied that Mochi is justified in reverting the text. I think there are still improvements to be made, but hack-and-slash reverting is not going to get us there. "Completely inaccurate" is an exaggeration at best. Would you like to be more specific about what is inaccurate? When you do, can you indicate whether you think that the sources are contradicted by other sources, or whether material from the sources are not accurately represented?
It seems unlikely to me that a new user should suddenly appear, intervene in the content dispute, make a revert and then join in the discussion. But in any case: Mochi, let me extend the same invitation to you that I have made to Journalist1983. Let's have some "action". Let's get more users involved. Let's invoke Wikipedia's policies on dispute resolution. This article should reflect Wikipedia's policies, and I will enthusiastically join any effort to see that it does. -- Shunpiker (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Piker, Dragon, et al -- I will leave the global crossing on mcauliffe's article (for now anyway) when you post that same material in the same way on George HW Bush's article. The NY Times article cited (thanks) indicates George HW Bush did the same thing. Otherwise, it needs to be assumed you're acting as partisans. To try and draw a link to Enron between mcauliffe was a cheap shot. Journalist1983 (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Journalist1983, if there is a way to include George Bush's dealings with Global Crossing in the article without veering off topic, I would support adding it. Bush is mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Global Crossing. But your accusations of partisan bias are inappropriate and mistaken. If you don't care to assume good faith on my part, that's your business. But I'm not going to jump through hoops to get you to do so. -- Shunpiker (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restored content

I restored some content that was deleted. Here's my reasoning:

  • The section about McAuliffe's shortcomings at the DNC needs some work (esp. more references), but it's needed (for NPOV and completeness) as counterpart to a discussion of his successes as chair. McAuliffe is not an uncontroversial figure, and the article shouldn't represent him as such.
  • I restored the sections on Global Crossing and Herman v. Moore because they have been very well documented, especially the section on Global Crossing. While they could still be improved further, the argument for deleting them seems to hinge on attacking editors who contribute to them as biased against McAuliffe.
  • I did not restore the "Real Time with Bill Maher" section. I see that as recentism, and without innuendo, there's no reason to consider that interview a significant episode in McAuliffe's public life.

--Shunpiker (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies

This is the biography of a living person and these edits should not be taken lightly.

Regardless of recent pile of "references," this section alleges nothing specific but implies serious wrongdoing. The only support for this that he has been "criticized by political commentators." Criticized for what? This weasle reference is as illegitemate as the claims of wrongdoing.

This section is absurd and a black eye for WP. I see the extensive work that people have spent trying to make something that is so clearly POV crap seem more appropriate, but all the wikilawyering in the world is not going to make this.69.143.164.143 (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The importance of Wikipedia's BLP policy cannot be understated. But it should not be used to suppress fair and notable criticism. That said, the "Controversies" section could use some more work.
The phrase "criticized by political commentators" taken by itself, would be "weasel words". But that's out of context. 69.143.164.143 asks, "Criticized for what?" But the answer is in the rest of the phrase:

McAuliffe has been criticized by political commentators such as William Safire and Arianna Huffington for his ties to Global Crossing

This phrase is not "weaselly" because it is clear both who is making a critique and what they are objecting to. Safire and Huffington are qualified as "political commentators" to avoid the impression that they are the only people who have notably voiced such a criticism. They are cited as representative examples. Perhaps it would be better to incorporate more examples in order to avoid "political commentators such as"?
Looking at it again, though, it seems to me that the phrase could be improved by re-writing it in the active voice:

Political commentators such as William Safire and Arianna Huffington have criticized McAuliffe for his ties to Global Crossing

I appreciate that 69.143.164.143 recognizes the work that has gone into editing the contentious section, but I wish they would not be so hasty to dismiss those efforts as a bad faith campaign to disguise "obviously POV crap". I became interested in the article because it seemed like it had become a battleground between unsubstantiated attacks on the subject and reflexive suppression of valid criticisms. I'd like to help steer it away from either course, and would sincerely appreciate help doing so. -- Shunpiker (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tags

The article looks fairly well balanced now, accepting that blp considerations moderate the use of some language and sources. Please comment on removal of the tags. (I'll not be doing it, excpet maybe in a few days). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I placed the tag and would like to keep it there. the article is in poor shape and is not balanced. for example, a whole section on global crossing exists on the mcauliffe article. mcauliffe sold his shares many years before alleged wrongdoing by global crossing (not by him), and it's purely an attack to try and tie the two events together. Some Wikipedia editors are buying into the unfair attacks. Moreover, why isn't there a "Global Crossing" and a controversies section in the article about George HW Bush? He did the same thing as McAuliffe (meaning he didn't do anything wrong either). Read the NY Times article in that section. These were passing partisan events, but Wikipedia should not be used to perpetuate or rearm failed political attacks. Journalist1983 (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)