Talk:Tom McMahon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

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}

Contents

[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}

[edit] Trash Rage At The Marvel

Whoever keeps removing this section of the article needs to stop. The facts were sourced. Tom McMahon is up for reelection this year, and it's not unusual for somebody to play politics with their article to make them look better. Please leave the politics out of it.

I'm not the one who's been removing it, but I can't say I don't agree with him. This article is extremely short, and it looks like it was created specifically to include that criticism and nothing else. It was a stupid one-time incident, and if there's to be no other information in the article then it shouldn't be there anywhere. That's giving it entirely too much undue weight. No single criticism, no matter how well sourced, should dominate an entire article.--Dycedarg ж 07:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if those anonymous individuals that are bent on exaggeration would be sure to sign their posts here on the talk page. It is clear that Dycedarg has it right when evaluating the behavior of the people who have been making changes lately. Once again, post that which you can support, without resorting to exaggeration. And the truth shall set you free! 02:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

First off everything is sourced, and there is other things that highlight they mayor's career and his past life. By all means add other thing to the article (as long as it's sourced), but don't remove sourced content that does not agree with your political agendas. User:74.212.1.66

You people that are running Tom McMahon's reelection effort by removing sourced facts from this article need to stop. There is not any POV at all. The burst of anger remark came from the source if you just read it. As stated before add all you like to the article as long as it's sourced, and quit playing politics to advance your agendas. User:74.212.1.66

The phrase "Burst of anger" does not exist in the source. Regardless this entry is not compliant with WP:BLP. It is not written in a style that's "neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view." It also given entirely too much weight in the article, it is far from the most important thing he's done but it constitutes virtually half of the article. Just having a source does not entitle you to include something, and it certainly does not entitle you to dictate the manner in which it is included. Also, I would remind you to assume good faith. I have no agenda, and I am not playing politics.--Dycedarg ж 20:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The source does indicate that The Mayor acted in anger. Second if you feel that it is given too much weight then that's fine, then add other things to the article that are factual rather then removing factual sourced incidents. I'm not against adding more sourced facts to the article, but removing factually sourced facts to "balance" its weight is not the way to go. User:72.78.21.96

I cleared up the statement to reflect exactly what the source stated. You can't be anymore neutral then that. User:72.78.21.96

First and foremost User 72.78.21.96, please be sure to sign your name to your posts here. Doing otherwise makes it confusing to those who read when one post starts the other ends. I would have to agree with Dycedarg that you are treading on thin ice with regards to Wiki policies on "Good faith". Seeing as how this article is the only one that you have edited it is clear you have a fixation with Mr. McMahon. If you want to show how fair and balanced you are I suggest you find some positive information to add to the article to balance the apparent negativity you are determined to put here. And the truth shall set you free! 00:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Berksguy, there is nothing political about it. The statement came directly from the source. If the source were political as you claim, the wiki administrators would naturally consider The Reading Eagle an unreliable source. Eskog stated previously that The Reading Eagle is considered a reliable source. As for your demand for positive information, by all means go to town as long as it's sourced, and another thing to point out is the objective of articles are to be neutral. If you feel that the article is out of balance then add sourced positive information about Tom McMahon, but removing sourced facts about that person to obtain balance is censorship, and negates the aspects of creating an encyclopedia if all of the facts are not allowed to be displayed. I have researched Tom McMahon and other then some political blogs out there, there is no other sourced facts about McMahon other then his temper with things like The Marvel. User:Dirtybirdy78

Despite the fact of it being sourced, it now looks like a Propaganda piece for the mayor. I don't have a problem with the sourced content, but it should be reworded in a non POV way. I also question why Berksguy decided to just put this up now for balance, instead of demanding the removal of source content that reflected badly toward Tom McMahon? User:Dirtybirdy78

You are incredible. The information you were determined to keep posted looked like propaganda in it's own right in a negative way. You wanted the information to stay, and it is there. An anonymous user above challenged me and others to find positive sourced information to add to this page. That was done. All of the information is sourced, and there is little opinion present outside of the opinion of Tom McMahon by way of quotations from him. Why should I play the childish game of continuing to argue with you over the inclusion of the word angrily when I can simply search the web to find information that is positive towards the man. I take offense to the fact that you are accusing me of a political agenda, and think that it clearly violates the "Good Faith" clause here at wikipedia. If you continue to make such insinuations I will be sure to report it to those who can handle such situations here at the wiki.

You can not have your cake and eat it to Dirtybirdy78, if you want to be able to post the bad, you surely should be able to handle seeing all the positive posted that exist. And the truth shall set you free! 20:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Marvel Incident"

I have reworded the paragraph about the pre-election incident to be more parallel with the other claims made by the article. You are correct that some of those other additions at first used inflammatory language, but this section did as well. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Techie Section"

I am not sure what the individual who reworded the techie section was trying to accomplish. Stating the subject of the articles opinion of things is not stating an overall opinion. I find it curious that the information regarding McMahon's thoughts on safety was removed. It would be nice if when you remove something like that you would come here and explain it in more detail. In my humble opinion it looks like it was possible you were trying to remove more than POV information. If I am in error, feel free to make the changes again and explain them in detail here. And the truth shall set you free! 16:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you are in error Berksguy. The way you are writing it looks like the front of a reelection campaign page, and not a factual article. I understand you have a bias favoring Tom McMahon, as do some people have a bias not favoring Tom McMahon, but regardless of both they deserve to be presented in a NPOV environment. User:DirtyBirdy78

I think you will see from the comment below that I am not. I am not in favor of the man. I do not agree with everything he has to say and do. I do on the other hand believe that it is perfectly ok to be sure to present both sides of the coin. If you have more negative things to say about the man, go find the articles and source them properly. The challenge was laid down previously to find positive articles which someone claimed were not out there. I proved them wrong. You and others can not seem to accept that. The challenge is now to you. Find credible sourced information to make yourself feel better. There is no point of view in play right now. The information included in each section explains the information better. It can not be done with a single sentence unless you then create a wiki for the subject and link to it as well. Take the time to do it if you are so concerned. Otherwise I will defend my inclusion of additional pertinent information every time.

To Dycedarg, thank you. I appreciate your constructive input.

One last thing, DirtyBirdy78, please be sure to sign your posts from now on. I was happy to add it for you! And the truth shall set you free! 22:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Would you people stop doing this?

This is getting stupid. NPOV does not mean one sentence stubs for each section. What Berksguy wrote contains quite a bit of information, and deleting it because you don't like his wording or style or whatever it is that upsets you is not helpful. If you disagree with the encyclopedic tone of what he wrote, fix it. Deletion is not the answer.--Dycedarg ж 22:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dycedrag you are a hypocrite. If you check the history Berksguy was the person that started deleting material that did not agree with him. As It kept getting restored, other information was added that was POV. Eskog later cleaned it up and agreed that the article was flooded with POV, and I only used the template that Eskog started. So you need to take it up with him, not me. Maybe you should research the facts before inserting your Liberal bias.User:Dirtybirdy78

For the record, my "template" was mostly about keeping the coverage in the article neutral towards all the different events. I certainly don't feel that it represents a great article as I had it. If some or all of the sections can be expanded with factual, cited information which is neither cheerleading nor defaming, then by all means, expand them. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No argument there Eskog. But titles like "McMahon & Senior citizens" are complete POV when the main focus on that topic for example is about a grant program. Yes it may benefit seniors, but that should be explained an another topic regard that grant. I also agree that there is way too much cheerleading going on. More then defaming. User:Dirtybirdy78

I edited titles to make DirtyBirdy78 more happy. The information in place is factual, it is cited, and it has been edited previously to remove POV. As stated previously, one sentence per section is not a good idea. Please feel free to edit my writing, but stop removing it 'Birdy. User:Berksguy

Berksguy you need to stop being a hypocrite. YOU REMOVED INFORMATION FROM THE MCMAHON ARTICLE FIRST. AFTER YOU RAN TO THE WIKI ADMINS DEMANDING IT BE REMOVED AND THEY DID NOT RESPOND YOU THEN FLOODED THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR POV. Otherwise your changes are much better, and I don't have a problem with them. Just stop being a hypocrite, and stop with your Matt Heckman conspiracy rants, because it is getting old. Maybe it should occur to you that other people then Matt Heckman see the mayor in a different light. I would challenge Eskog, and Dycedrag the hypocrite to visit Reading, PA sometime, and I'm betting they will never forget that experience, and not in a good way either. It's a pretty crime ridden town. User:Dirtybirdy78

Dirtybirdy, you need to chill. I am not a hypocrite, and calling me one is a personal attack. Both of you, do not make baseless accusations towards each other and me. Comment on content, not on the people who add it. Oh, and by the way, I have if anything a conservative bias. Eskog's sole edit was to change the trash debate section to a neutral state, an edit which I wholly agree with and have restored. I find it difficult to understand how you could treat that as an endorsement of the states of any of the other sections. Regardless of the neutrality of the wording of the information that Berksguy has added, it is from what I can see factual. So if you don't like the wording, fix it. Make the article better. Deleting half of it does not accomplish that.--Dycedarg ж 19:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is where you are flip-flopping Dycedarg. First you claim that deletion is not the answer, but yet you delete sourced content. You are contradicting yourself. I'm quite chilled thanks for asking, and I'm only making a valid point. I agree with Berksguy that the addition to the trash debate incident creates balance and agree to stick by that. User:Dirtybirdy78

It may be sourced, but it's not neutral. Eskog, judging by his only edit to the article, agrees with me, seeing as he removed the same stuff I did. Angrily is unnecessary, newspaper reporters are no more able to magically determine someone's state of mind than anyone else. The exact manner in which he removed the papers is also unnecessarily negative, and makes the sentence too long. I don't really see why the quotes are necessary either. If they must, the quotes can stay but, I am removing the other stuff I mentioned above. If you want to re-add them, justify the action beyond "it's sourced." I can easily source a statement saying that George Bush supports terrorism, but you can try adding that to his article and see how long it sits there. Sources that are not neutral should be edited until they are.--Dycedarg ж 19:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed reference to crumpled and threw away because this information it is not specified who witnessed this. The word removed is equal to that without risking any level of POV. I would like to thank DirtyBirdy78 for taking the time to make some additions that are sourced that can add to the neutrality of the article. On another note, I do not appreciate the accusations, I did make any statements that you were indeed anyone specific. I pointed out a coincidence that I thought the Wiki Admins should take a look at since they do not appreciate blocked individuals coming back and continuing quests. If they have looked into the coincidence and are satisfied with the results then so be it. I believe it is my duty and the duty of others to look out for things like this. If I am wrong someone of authority can correct me on that.

As for previous deletion, if you take a look at the history it was removed from POLITICAL HISTORY a number of times because it did not relate to that portion of the site. I also made a number of edits to reduce the POV time and time again that was reverted many times. I have no problem with the information being there, I took the time to revert and only added additional information when I was challenged to do so by user 74.212.1.66 when he stated "By all means add other thing to the article (as long as it's sourced)" I did so, and then you and others began to cry foul that this was becoming a propaganda piece. I was asked to find additional information, and I did so. I searched for McMahon's name on Google to come up with the information I found and was sure to select from reliable sources. Had I found negative information I would have included it, but I did not. Again, thank you for taking the time to find information that can balance the article. I would appreciate in the future if you would not make personal attacks on me accusing me of rants concerning the individual in question. You will see that I have made no rants on the subject, though your post above certainly comes across as one even though it is likely you did not intend it that way. I am simply asking you to reflect on your own behavior before casting stones at others.

I think the article is fine the way it is at the moment. Can we agree on that finally? And the truth shall set you free! 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To the new user '68.82.102.20', in order to add information you must also provide a reliable source of information. If these articles were indeed in the Reading Eagle, then you should be able to provide links to archived informaton on their website. IF you can cite them adequately, then thy have a right to be there. I look forward to you doing so! And the truth shall set you free! 02:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops - as this is a content dispute, I should not have used rollback. My edit summary would have been the same as the previous edit summary. The "source" for this information does not even mention McMahon's name, so claiming this is his fault is at best original research and more likely an intentionally misleading statement. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)