Jump to content

Talk:Donald Sussman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Political contributions

[edit]

Sussman is a big political contributor, which should be in the entry.

I was just listening to the 11 February 2016 Democratic Party primary debate. Judy Woodruff said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/11/transcript-the-democratic-debate-in-milwaukee-annotated/

WOODRUFF: We're going to move on. Secretary Clinton, your campaign has recently ramped up criticism of Senator Sanders for attending Democratic Party fundraisers from which you say he benefited. But nearly half of your financial sector donations appear to come from just two wealthy financiers, George Soros and Donald Sussman, for a total of about $10 million.

Also, with a quick Google search I found:

https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/12/07/stealthy-wealthy-donald-sussman/

In all, Sussman has given more than $12.21 million to campaigns, party committees, ballot initiatives, political nonprofits and super PACs over the years, starting in the 1990s at the federal level and in 2002 in Maine, where he’s spent more than $4.5 million. He gave $100,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 1998 at a time when Congress overrode then-President Bill Clinton's veto of a law making it harder for shareholders to sue in state courts. Sussman supported the measure.

But his biggest political influence may be through Pingree. Sussman's employees--even his chauffeur and chef--have contributed at least $209,900 to her campaigns, by far the largest single source of her campaign cash.

--Nbauman (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sussman in politics

[edit]

It has been contended that Sussman is not "in politics" despite being one of the biggest donors to political causes in the United States. This is an odd contention since sources cited in the article point to his involvement in politics. One does not have to run for office to be "in politics". For example, this headline is illuminating "Sussman top donor in Maine politics." I would like to hear from anyone who disputes his involvement in politics.--TM 16:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think to kick off the discussion, you should be honest about your flawed edit. You removed him from the category "Amercian people of Jewish descent" and substituted the Maine politics category. That is absurd. For many reasons. First, he is far more noteworthy as a leading "bundler" of donations to U.S. national Democratic political candidates, dating back nearly 30 years. Second, you have only the Portland Maine local newspaper to cite -- well of course he's a big deal to them. There are not a lot of billionaire donors on the Maine islands. Third, you have no basis to remove him from the broader category, which removal you have not justified. If you want to add that one back, it doesn't make any difference whether you add the silly (and perhaps not current?) one about Maine politics. But don't edit war and don't dissemble. And don't remove valid content without any rationale. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sussman is (or was) at one time very clearly "in Maine politics". He is also very clearly still "in" national politics. Categorizing him as "in Maine politics" does not mean he is not in US national politics because Maine is part of the United States. You should read Wikipedia:Categorization. It very clearly explains how it works.--TM 17:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made a simple request - that you provide a mainstream RS to verify that he is currently a significant figure in Maine politics, in light of his greatly reduced presence in the state after his separation from Congresswoman Pingree. Moreover, you've provided no rationale for your having twice deleted the larger category of Americans of Jewish descent. Why was that? Thirdly, you are edit-warring, and with at least a few years of WP experience under your belt, you should know better than that. You also should know better than to cite a headlines as an RS reference -- especially when it appears to be a deadlink headline. We could check what they think of your editing at 3RRN, I suppose. It would be simpler if you would please restore the broad category you removed. You also might add the category for his much more noteworthy funding of national politics. SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The category I added is in relation to being a Jewish American involved in Maine politics, which he very clearly has been during his life. Whether he is "currently" or not does not matter. This is an encyclopedia. If you wish to add another category relating to something else, no one is stopping you. However, the category I've added is very clearly appropriate. If you'd like further sourcing regarding his involvement, I can oblige here, donors-exit/ here, here, here, and here.--TM 17:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added Category:American political fundraisers. That should solve the problem, yes? Neutralitytalk 00:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: Thanks for that. I agree that is a significant category for him. As to the lesser ones, I don't see much harm in excessive, marginal or weakly sourced categories. However I'm at a loss to understand why the Category:American people of Jewish descent has been removed four times without explanation. Am I missing something? Otherwise I can't see why that would be removed. SPECIFICO talk 14:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what happened but Category:Jewish American people in Maine politics was removed in recent edits. I've readded it.--TM 01:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have removed the other category 4 times now in the past 10 hours or so. I am again ask if you to restore it, otherwise you face a block. SPECIFICO talk 02:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jewish American people in Maine politics is a sub-category of Category:American people of Jewish descent. I suggest you familiarize yourself with how categorization works. There is nothing unusual about what I did.--TM 18:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

citations needed

[edit]

Edit made here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Sussman&diff=1037572334&oldid=1036928039 was erased by SPECIFICO. Rather than delete an inline citation, add a source to bolster your claim, otherwise a refimprove becomes necessary. Sucker for All (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

major WP:NPOV issues

[edit]

@SPECIFICO:, you deleted 3 tags related to NPOV without explanation and ignored a ping about sourcing (mostly involved with questions of wording). Certainly these sources make clear that Sussman's a man who courts controversy regularly..

https://www.rollcall.com/2016/04/22/major-mystery-donor-reveals-why-he-backed-donna-edwards/ https://www.themainewire.com/2012/03/brazen/ http://maineexaminer.com/federal-grand-jury-subpoenas-donald-sussman-maine-political-donor-pingrees-former-husband/ https://www.influencewatch.org/person/selwyn-donald-sussman/ https://freebeacon.com/issues/offshore-tax-haven-leak-implicates-seven-figure-pro-clinton-donor/ https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b150qf2pjrwpd5/paamco-vs-sussman-a-cautionary-tale-of-hedge-fund-seeding

Since the article does not have the word "controversy" nor an insinuation that Sussman has ever done anything scandalous, why did you delete these tags? Sucker for All (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your concern. Is it that the article is biased toward presenting controversy or omitting controversy? SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question does not reference a single negative mainstream news article that has discussed Sussman and many more have in fact mentioned him. A major problem with omitting controversy exists here. Sucker for All (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no animosity against SPECIFICO, but this kind of reminds me of blueboyliny accusing me of not having discussions when he himself was guilty of that. I firmly believe major npov issues exist here. I could find dozens of articles similar to the above and they aren't yet represented in this article. @Aitias:, @Bjweeks:, @SilkTork:, @Tony1:, @Caspian blue:, @Mike.lifeguard:, @Hersfold:, @J.delanoy:, @Tiptoety: any ideas how to get unbanned from namespace to add a "Controversies" section? Is it usual for 1 unban request to be addressed so rapidly and the next so slowly? Sucker for All (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chatting with friends or mentors should be done on your user talk page, please. SPECIFICO talk 21:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is borderline promotional, which - frankly - is the case for the majority of our articles; but doesn't appear to be untrue, and is sourced, so the tagging seems initially to be inappropriate. However, a quick look at the issue does indicate that Paamco and Sussman is a significant news item that should appear in the article - [1], [2], etc. Concerns about political funding that exceed official limits involving Sussman which make the news, such as [3], should also appear, neutrally, in the article. I don't think these issues should be in a section named Controversies, as that would be undue, but a reader would expect a neutral article on Wikipedia to include all significant news items regarding a topic. The article does need balancing, and readers should be made aware that as it currently stands the article is not giving a complete picture, so I will restore the NPOV tags.
  • Sucker for All, this is the first time (I am aware of) that I have come across you. Though I agree with you that this article needs balancing, there was no need to ping so many people. I looked into your edit history, and I can see that in a short space of time you have managed to be rather disruptive. For a moment there, before I looked into your claims, I was tempted to indef block you as someone too disruptive to remain on Wikipedia - you have been blocked from editing articles, and yet you continue to be disruptive on talkpages. I haven't blocked you, not because you are right about this article (we block not because someone is right or wrong on an issue, but because of the way they handle an issue - most people end up being blocked not for vandalism, but for doing the right thing the wrong way - you are doing the right thing the wrong way), but because I hope you will learn how to become a useful part of the Wikipedia community. You did right to tag the article as being unbalanced. And you did right to then raise the issue on the talkpage, with evidence to back you up, when those tags were removed. Where you went wrong was in pinging several people, and in making irrelevant comments about another user. Accept that you are in a situation where two people are disagreeing about the best way forward, and are not making progress. At this point you do need to get a third opinion, but it is better to get an opinion from those who are obvious to all involved are neutral, and who are willing to volunteer their time - such as leaving a note at Wikipedia:Third opinion or one of the WikiProjects listed above, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography.
  • Your heart seems to be in the right place. You just need to put things more into perspective. And to consider more carefully what you say, and how you are saying it. SilkTork (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: Sorry, forgot to notify you. It does appear that you're making a proxy edit for an editor banned from doing so, and I wonder whether you checked the sources and what they say as to "controversy" before doing so. I would expect you, like any editor who places such a tag, to make specific content and sourcing proposals as to article improvement. Are you sure you want to reinstate that tag? OP made no constructive suggestions, although nothing in his ban prevents him from proposing well-sourced BLP-compliant content. He posts only a complaint and several tenuous sources that don't seem to verify his concern. SPECIFICO talk 12:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that SilkTork did offer suggestions as far as ways to improve the article. Add some of the sources above and maybe it will be more neutral. Sucker for All (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologize for pinging so many people here, and while I do recognize disruption, I am trying to continue to contribute. My unban was declined, after 3 days, for not fully responding to a user's concerns, while I was in the middle of responding to said user's concerns. And now I have made similar contributions here as elsewhere, by clearly reaching consensus, and no one has addressed my block in almost a month. Who do I turn to? Sucker for All (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi User:SPECIFICO. The sequence as I see it is this: A user (SfA) comes upon an article (Donald Sussman) where they feel there are issues. They tag the article highlighting their concerns. Another user (SPO) removes those tags with the comment "Counterfactual tagging", but doesn't address the issues. SfA explains their concerns on the talk page. SPO does not address those concerns, saying they do not understand why the issue has been raised. SP asks for further opinions. An independent user (ST) responds, looks into the matter, and agrees with SfA that there are aspects of Sussman's life and career that are raised in reliable sources such as Bloomberg and The New York Times, which are not covered in the article, and explains above in detail why the tags should be replaced. I will repeat and highlight those words here in case you missed them (I did write a lot of text, and I can see how the words relating to the tagging might be missed): "a quick look at the issue does indicate that Paamco and Sussman is a significant news item that should appear in the article - [4], [5], etc. Concerns about political funding that exceed official limits involving Sussman which make the news, such as [6], should also appear, neutrally, in the article. I don't think these issues should be in a section named Controversies, as that would be undue, but a reader would expect a neutral article on Wikipedia to include all significant news items regarding a topic. The article does need balancing, and readers should be made aware that as it currently stands the article is not giving a complete picture, so I will restore the NPOV tags."
  • I hope that clarifies the matter for you. If not, please let me know. Or let me know where you feel I have misunderstood the situation. SilkTork (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello thanks for your reply. Like most articles on less well-known subjects, this one could use improvement. It does not have any NPOV issues that rise to the level of that tag. OP did not identify any "controversy" or provide any solid mainstream source of the sort that we would expect to abundant if in fact any BLP controversy had taken place. One of his sources is flat out unacceptable for any BLP, the others are weak and certainly do not establish WEIGHT.
OP could have described the specific content he wanted to see in the article. He could have drafted well-sourced content. He didn't do that even when I took the time to respond to him. At any rate, it's now you and not OP who is the owner of the tag. I see no problem with mentioning the Paamco litigation. It relates to Sussman's primary business of seeding what later turn out to be very successful fund management companies. There's nothing controversial there. There's a commercial dispute about who gets how much money. Like tens of thousands of other lawsuits every year in US finance. What I find interesting about that is that the litigation apparently led to the disclosure of just how lucrative that business can be and how good a deal Sussman apparently is able to negotiate for himself. But no controversy there.
The campaign finance Bloomberg article is not about Sussman. It's about the widespread use of this loophole. He is named as the example for whom Bloomberg used publicly avalable date to illustrate the issue. Again, no controversy. Possibly a public policy problem if campaign finance reform is ever addressed in the US. No broad mainstream coverage of Sussman in this regard.
As you note, we have innumerable articles that are written by fans and full of trivia or citations to primary or fan media. This article doesn't come close to those (mostly untagged) articles. And to say that the article as a whole is written from a fans POV or that it's like a press release is, to my eyes, a gross misrepresentation that you have now made by reinserting the tag.
What caught my attention about OP's tagging was 1) he identified no specific "major POV issues" in his complaint above. He makes the unsupported statement that Sussman "clearly" "courts controversy regularly" and seems to call his conduct "scandalous". And, 2) he cited extraordinarily weak sources, but gave no suggested article text or any attempt to specify how the article might be improved. Finally, as you may know, there are a number of editors who focus from time to time on financiers or other wealthy individuals whose articles identified them as Jewish and attempt to insert negative false or exaggerated information consistent with longstanding anti-semitic tropes about undue control of business, media, politics, etc. In the case of OP, looked at his brief edit history and saw this post in which he makes an absurd claim that a certain Jewish investor controls every major gas company.
I think you had it right the first time. OP should be indeffed as NOTHERE, and I think the tag is way overstating what's needed for future improvement of this article. At any rate, this is rather a hill of beans and not worth much more of your or my time. I hope you'll remove the tag, add whatever article content you determine that your Times and Bloomberg sources support, and consider blocking OP. SPECIFICO talk 16:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Sussman&oldid=1208431122"