Talk:Michael McGinn

Murray/2013

This article needs to have information about how McGinn was defeated for reelection. The page doesn't mention Murray or the 2013 election at all. Without reading the sides closely one might think he is still mayor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.205.133.220 (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

BLP issues

There is a discussion about this article on the BLP Noticeboard [1]. I ask other interested editors to weigh in. Specifically, my efforts to rectify the situation were reverted here [2]. Qworty (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've responded on the notice board to the specific issues raised there. I'm not really sure what it was you thought you were rectifying with your edits but all you've done so far is removed relevant, sourced material and so were reverted. Please do not removed any other sourced material that isn't in flagrant violation of BLP (ie libelous or potentially harmful, unsourced information) without first discussing it here with interested editors. TomPointTwo (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

TomPointTwo is clearly biased and his edits are so slanted that no reasonable person can accept his claims of neutrality. That his edits have stood this long are ridiculous. He has obvious hostility against the subject and should be barred from further edits. Selectively quoting reporters opinions and musstating pol ressults is clear bad faith. In the interesy of reason, we cannot allow them to stand. We are not fans of McGinn, but we are fans of Wikipedia neutrality. TomPointTwo will need to make hate his full time job if he wants it to remain spewed across wikipedia as we shall take it down every time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.126.250.58 (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Who's "we"? If you have a problem with the assertion of any of the reliable sources cited in this article you may bring them up here. Elway polls have been the point of contention in the past by people who didn't like their results but they easily meet wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source, the same with all the media outlets who concurred with the interpretation of Elway's findings. If you have other reliable sources which are in dispute with any cited material already here please bring them to our attention and we can get them worked into the text, no problem. Try and avoid the desire to campaign here though and I'd apprecaite it if you would assume good faith on the part of other editors. TomPointTwo (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is TomPointTwo such an "interested editor"? There seems to be a heavy conflict of interest as the only information offered by this author is that which is decidedly negative. Request removal as an editor in the interests of neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.135.36.99 (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Because the topic interests me, why else? I've worked very hard to include extensive biographical details on this article and have never shied from including positive material about the subject and his positions, often in his own words. I pull material from reliable sources via Google and so my content is driven largely by the news cycle. If you have a specific problem with any of the referenced material let me know, don't just delete it, we have a policy against removing referenced material simply because you don't like it. TomPointTwo (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

TomPointTwo, we all appreciate your efforts, however, they are not balanced. Polls and statistics can be interpreted a number of ways, and you have shown a lack of acceptance for any interpretations other than you own. In fact, you often "correct" them to your own interpretations within minutes of them being changed. There is a difference between "interest" and "obsession", and when someone takes an interest in a public figure's page to the extent that you have, there are usually ulterior motives. I think it is very clear to the majority of readers that you have a specific agenda, and you are using Wikipedia as a platform for that agenda. Unfortunately, this is not the place to do so. If you wish to make an anti-McGinn webpage on your own dime and on your own domain, I encourage you to do so. Unfortunately, this page is on the radar for it's rampant misuse, and it's unlikely that your own interpretation will not be the last word on the matter, regardless of how badly you want that to happen. Until a consensus is reached on the neutrality of this page, I would ask that you stop pushing the issue in the main article. At this point, your actions amount to vandalism and bad faith. Your wording is highly misleading and is taken from sources which solely support your view. They have a place in a Wikipedia article, but only in the context of balancing views. You need to take your own advice about removing material that you do not like, as this is what you have been doing ad-nauseum. Please cease. Thugdog Nasty (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)— Thugdog Nasty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Also, Tom, please refraining from using phrases like "We have a policy", etc. It is misleading and implies that your actions and views are sanctioned by Wikipedia staff. There is serious debate and controversy as to whether your behavior is within the limits of Wikipedia guidelines. The fact of the matter is that readers/editors are not required to follow the instructions that you lay out for them. I've no doubt that you want us to follow them, but until a more impartial judge issues a decision, your requests/demands for acquiescence are hereby denied. A request for help has been issued to Wikipedia Editorial. Hopefully they will help us resolve this matter shortly. Thugdog Nasty (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)— Thugdog Nasty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Assuming the poll is legitimate (and there is some question to that) - Why would we omit the "good" and "fair" results from the poll information? 66% rated McGinn fair or better, yet, this interpretation of the results is not allowed to stand in the article. Only "excellent" and "poor". Reason? Thugdog Nasty (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)— Thugdog Nasty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hey, uh, Thugdog Nasty. If by "attracting a lot of attention due to misuses" I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're referring to the Seattle blog scene. More specifically this post from a pro-McGinn blog. I don't know whether or not you're the author of the blog but as your single purpose account was created a couple hours after that post I'm going to assume you're at least connected. I'd also imagine that the sudden spike in interest in this article is due to the "Recall McGinn" noise floating around the Seattle political circuit and this is the start of silly season. That's all good and dandy, things like this are what attract a lot of our most constructive editors. Unfortunately it also brings a great degree of paradigm prone enthusiasm with little background in our policies or what we do here. Yes, "our" and "we". There's only a few dozen "staff" members at wikipedia and they're mainly the janitors of the site. The policies and articles are written and maintained by unpaid volunteers in good standing. In other words, editors like me and, now, you.

So with that I'd recommend you look over some of the core policies we have, most importantly WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. These are the core policies for writing biographical articles of contemporary figures. I think you will find many answers there. Lastly, you'll find that we don't assert how we feel or what we think here, we convey what Reliable Sources feel or think as it is relavent to the subject at hand. I understand you're not happy with the way this article comes off, that's fine. But you need to find specific issues and not just make broad accusations. Then you need to frame that problem within our policies. If you find additional material by Reliable Sources that you think disputes what you find here then add it into the text or ask a more experienced editor for help. If there's anything I can do, specifically, let me know, her or on my talk page.

A quick note on the poll as I have brought this up before. I put overall lean of the poll in the text and then the rather striking margins on the poll. This is the most effective way of communicating the results of the poll in lay terms but if you would like to place the poll in a different place in the article or simply include the entirety of the poll's broad categories I think we could do that.TomPointTwo (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not the blogger in question, but I was made aware of this page due to that article. Be careful of WP:OUT violations as I was warned of today when I even insinuated the group with whom you may be affiliated. You seem to be knowledgeable of the rules while liberally violating them and making excuses for doing so. In any event. Is "good" also not positive? Is "fair" not in the eye of the beholder as to whether it positive, negative, or neutral. If you had wanted to include the full results, you could have, but you chose not to. Why don't you allow the reader to determine "overall lean"? It is two more entries and not more than 20-30 additional characters. In my opinion, you are drawing conclusions and leading the reader to those conclusions. Your edits are not neutral, as has been pointed out here repeatedly (read below). I am not the first person to make this observation, perhaps just the most persistent. As the most determined author who monitors the page continuously, you clearly have the upper-hand over your critics who cannot devote the time to the matter that you do. This is why you eagerly take down the Neutral notice as soon as it seems that people have become exhausted with changing your opinion (which is clearly not possible). Unfortunately, I don't think that you I will see eye to eye on this matter. This is why we need some kind of impartial ruling from the editorial staff. Whatever ruling they make and whatever guidance I receive, I will abide by, and I trust you will do the same. I will be diligent in seeking such a ruling. Have a good day. Thugdog Nasty (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)— Thugdog Nasty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

BLPN again

Just a note that this article is yet again under discussion at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Thugdog, I will add that, "the editorial staff" as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is you, Tom, me, and anyone else that cares to comment at BLPN. There are no separate editorial staff in charge of other editors, although McGinn or his representative(s) might get more of a response if they choose to contact the Wikimedia Foundation volunteers team directly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Understood, and thank you. Although I imagine that there is some kind of regulator in the pipeline somewhere. I did receive a warning for speculating on Tom's affiliations, with a mild warning about banning for violating WP:OUT, so it appears that some animals are a bit more equal than others. I can't ban you, nor would I want to :) Also, in theory, Tom and I could undo each others edits in perpetuity, hundreds of times per day, and eventually I assume that someone would have to make a judgement call. Otherwise, it would be a minute-by-minute mess. I'm a fan and user of Wikipedia and have no interest in this whatsoever (I cannot speak for Tom), so hopefully there is a way to reach consensus in talk. If two determined people have completely opposing positions on an issue, some form of dispute resolution should exist to maintain the integrity of the editorial system. As it is, he who monitors the page most frequently has editorial control,and I doubt this is the intended outcome. Thugdog Nasty (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

These are fair points, touching on things my brief comment didn't explain. First, there are rules in place to prevent people undoing each other's edits repeatedly - an administrator would block one or both of you, and/or protect the article against further changes, for breaking the WP:3RR rule. However, administrators do that without being "editorial staff" in the sense of ruling on content. Equally, yes there are a number of avenues for dispute resolution - see WP:DR. I see some more viewpoints are coming out at WP:BLPN and I especially advise everyone involved to read and reflect and act on those. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the Federal Courts upheld the Seattle gun ban. http://www.king5.com/home/Times-Federal-judge-upholds-Seattles-ban-on-guns-in-parks-87488952.html?commentPage=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallas61 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

RSN

If anyone doubts the use of the Chamber of Commerce's statements as a reliable source for statements of the C of C - the noticeboard is at WP:RS/N. Collect (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I undid your edit as you undid all of mine, rather than just that one where I removed that statement. Merrill Stubing (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#What_to_do_with_this_edit.3F_Language_says_a_thing.2C_but_it.27s_a_primary_source_.28negative_BLP_statement_too.29

Don't re-add the possibly BLP-offending statement without concensuses, cheers. Merrill Stubing (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Your edits were intertwined. Collect (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the other ones as well. I'm not aware of any BLP violating material in your edits; the type of content you're talking about is libelous or unreferenced, pejorative material about the person. Please make sure that any future edits you make are in agreement with the inline citations already provided. Also, while a neutral tone is always the goal please do not strip referenced statements of factual assertions because they may or may not reflect well on the subject at hand. Neither was the case with the changes you made to the portion on labor endorsements. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

Once again this article has been raised as an issue at WP:BLPN. Reading over it, I'm not surprised - the article seems to take a strong political slant against its subject, with just an occasional sentence allowing in any viewpoint in support of him. The comment earlier in this talk page about BLP only applying to libellous or openly pejorative comments about living persons is rather concerning. As an example of a bio of a rather similar politician (who also has plenty of controversies and even has neutrality tags on parts of his article) it's worth comparing Ken Livingstone - that article does a far better job of presenting a neutral perspective covering all aspects of the subject with due weight. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Some specific examples of NPOV to accompany the tag would be helpful. The previous BLP comment was in relation to material which can be immediately removed and was accurate in the context of a BLP related criteria, not NPOV, which is a different concept. Most of the material was written by me and most of it is pulled from reliable sources via Google News. The city's two principle and reliable media outlets {The Seattle Times and The Seattle P-I) have editorial boards which are not wildly fond of McGinn and the local network affiliates are always on the hunt for red meat. The other sources I pull from are professional and business journals, two more local communities which I would say are skeptical of many of his policy positions. I try and find the highest quality sources I can. The mayor's a pretty controversial guy and, I'd venture to say, increasingly unpopular. Someone or something coming off as flawed is not inherently biased, sometimes it's just how the facts come off and people don't like it. With all that in mind I always try to outline his publicly stated positions with as much clarity as possible and then insert the what seems to be the most broadly inclusive public, and precise technical, reactions to those positions. With some specifics brought up maybe we can find a solution to the NPOV perception. TomPointTwo (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Even looking at the second reference in the lead of the article, "Outsiders gain clout at Seattle City Hall", it mentions The Real Change and The Stranger as being local weeklies that have supported McGinn's policies. The Real Change isn't referenced in the article at all, and the Stranger is only mentioned once, and as an explanation of how he got elected, rather than a source for any article content. By contrast, the Seattle Times and Seattle Post-Intelligencer make up, as you say, probably the majority of the references in the article, and they're both generally opposed to McGinn. You point out that the other main sources you use are generally negative about McGinn as well - isn't this overall issue a reason to be looking to balance these sources with others? I appreciate it's important to have reliable sources - to what extent are the Real Change and the Stranger not deemed reliable? - but that becomes a problem when it seems to be slanting the entire article.

Again just looking at that one reference and how its material is conveyed in the article, the Puget Sound Business Journal seems to be using "environmentalists, biking advocates and entertainment interests" merely as examples of the sort of groups that have supported McGinn, but our article converts this into him winning election with the support of a coalition comprised solely of those three elements. With the adjoining sentence talking about how businesses, unions, "the downtown community" (a rather loaded phrase) etc are all apparently opposed to his policies, the lead seems to be interpreting this source to produce a picture of someone elected by a group of somewhat odd interest groups, while opposed by respectable interests. This is an unduly negative slant to produce when the source itself manages to talk about McGinn more positively (sweeping away the political "Old Guard", disconcerting business interests who expect to have insider access to the Mayor's office, etc) even while it also recounts the criticisms and concerns about him. No politician gets elected just by environmentalists, cyclists and nightclub owners - they get elected by the electorate. (Again Ken Livingstone is a good counter-example to look at - you would struggle to find anyone talking positively about his policies or leadership or personality, especially business leaders, and even his own party campaigned against him, but someone must have voted for him otherwise how did he get the job? And the widely criticised congestion charge was retained, not removed, under his successors.)

Another article to look at is Margaret Thatcher. Hugely controversial, to the extent of opposition to her reaching the heights of major riots (with deaths, I think), an assassination attempt, and eventually forced to step down after a leadership challenge from within her own party. But Wikipedia's article manages to treat her history and achievements neutrally to the extent that it was recently promoted to Good Article status.

I know you've covered this in a separate section, but; McGinn is doing badly in the polls at the moment, so the lead of Wikipedia's article about him includes poll data. Isn't this a bit odd? When he was doing well in the polls prior to getting elected as mayor, was a poll cited in the lead then? Looking at the article history, no, at that time the article merely mentioned that he looked likely to be one of the final candidates in the election.

Do you think there is scope for making the article more balanced? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

First off I want to say, that's a deliberate and helpful series of comments, thanks. I'll try to address each observation in turn.

The Seattle Times and the P-I are the two principle "print" news sources for Seattle. The P-I in recent years went to an online only format but it's long considered one of the two flagship "papers" for the metro area. Their status as reliable sources according to Wikipedia's policy guidelines is indisputable. The Stranger and Real Change on the other hand are not, neither are actual news outfits. The Stranger is an alt-pub of highly questionable journalistic credibility. It trends toward hyperbolic pop culture and mixes editorialism with attempts at actual reporting. For example its "political reporter" described McGinn's recent opponent as thus and it's greatest claim to local fame is the hosting of a local pornographic film festival. Thier goal is to move ad laden print, nothing more. I hope that this tip of that iceberg is sufficient. Real Change on the other hand is more admirable in mission but still not a real paper. Real Change is a "newsletter" on homeless issues sold by the homeless as an alternative to panhandling. While I personally consider it a worthwhile cause I also would never consider it an actual news publication. Its "position" is largely defined by one man, its proprietor, Tim Harris. Real Change is a social project for the homeless, a publication pushing for the right of the homeless as viewed by Harris. Until recently it's been fairly non-committal in regards to actual endorsement of individuals but that has seemed to change for Harris recently. Lastly, the noting the Stranger's affect on a notable event is well within the bounds of accreditation, as it was noted by an RS, but citing the Stranger as an RS itself is not.

As for the PSBJ cite I'm very much ready to discuss changes in phrasing. I would put forward that McGinn actually was elected by a rather broad collection of "odd interest groups". I'd also say that changing the wording to reflect that their votes were not the exclusive force would be appropriate. You may also be surprised to find the plurality of those forces in local politics. I'm a bit nervous about the unnuanced and pejorative (loaded?) label of "Old Guard" but, again, I think it's worth further discussion.

As for the pattern of poll inclusion this may be due to a weakness in my reference gathering methodology. I principally use Google News and if polls don't hit that or link from articles that do I might miss them altogether. Once I started digging I found two other dated but broad popularity polls. He won the election in a squeaker (<3 points) and the two polls afterwards shows his approval a bit under 50% so it simply wasn't a big news item. After the election I believe he peaked at about 47% approval. As I mentioned on the talk page I'm working on a polling subsection with a more complete overview in numbers. I'd like to get a table in if I can find a broad, shared paradigm for the data. As it stands now his latest numbers seem to be visibly nosediving, esp taking the latest viaduct measures hitting the headlines. The inclusion in the lead seem appropriate. Still, pending the creation of a dedicated subsection, as I said before, I'm very ready to move it somewhere more appropriate. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Barring some additional discussion or further imput in the next few days I'm going to remove the tag. It's been more than a week and the tag was placed at the behest of a anon complaint on the BLP noticeboard. This seems to have run out of steam but this issue can always be reopened at a latter date, here preferably.TomPointTwo (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, in fact I've gone ahead and removed the tag. There are a series of parts of the article where the phrasing (similar to the one example already discussed) and the tone seem to be struggling to maintain NPOV as I read them, but it will take me quite some time to go through identifying them all. And even longer to suggest alternatives. I can understand the issues with the reliable sources from the area all having their own particular POV. Realistically, I think you will be largely on your own here, so please do your best with the wording :) I do take anon BLP complaints seriously, purely because in practice, someone who has a real-life BLP issue with an article often does initially attempt to rectify it as an unregistered user. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Opinion polls

With the recent addition of an NPOV tag and a couple complaints on the BLP noticeboard I figured I'd make a note here about opinion polling. I just added a new non-partisan poll from Elway. It's pretty devastating but it's also clearly relevant and neutral. I know there's been a few complains about Elway so I linked out to their article which documents those complaints. I've added the poll to the lede because I think it belongs there, in brief form, as the only polling available and I can't think of a more appropriate place to put it. If anyone has a problem with that let me know and maybe we can find a different spot for it. On that note though I'd like a polling subsection but I can't seem to find any other non-partisan, scientific, professional polls. If anyone knows of where we can find some please, please let me know so we can get a subsection with some actual empirical data going. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Found a couple.[3][4] I'll try and find an actual data set for the first and keep digging for others then start a new section. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

New Neutrality Issues

"As mayor he has experienced political conflict dealing with local unions, developers, the downtown community, moderate environmentalists, businesses and other groups in the city on the subject of the tunnel."

Are we to believe that the entire "downtown community" is conflicted with McGinn? How is that term even defined? Are we supposed to believe that "businesses" are all conflicted with him? Can we define "moderate environmentalist"? Is not "other groups in the city" broad and vague? Are editorial blogs considered neutral quotable sources that should feature in a prominent place such as an intro?

Tom seems to be in love with certain sources, and he finds them to be "credible", but would a Fox News article be appropriate for an leadoff paragraph on Barack Obama's page? Seattle has similarly slanted outlets.

This is not encyclopedic. If the author feels so strongly about it's inclusion, perhaps it can be moved to a "controversy" section which is somewhat common when a figure is controversial.

It seems odd to put a policy piece statement such as the tunnel where it is. It's an important issue, but only one of many.

Thugdog Nasty (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)— Thugdog Nasty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"McGinn ... won election with the support of a coalition of environmentalists, biking advocates and entertainment interests."

I know two mothers that voted for McGinn. Did he win with the support of mothers? I know a few black people that voted for McGinn. Did he win with the support of black people? Did he win with support from a "coalition" of black mothers? I know someone with the name of "Sam" that voted for McGinn. Did he win with the support of Sams? If so, why are they not listed? It is estimated that 2% of people in Seattle bike to work. Hardly enough of a demo to win an election. It is a fairly indisputable statistical fact that the majority of people that vote for McGinn drive cars. Therefore, McGinn won with the support of motorists. Why are they not listed?

Need I go on?

Thugdog Nasty (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)— Thugdog Nasty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You're attempting to fracture easily identifiable demographics with anecdotes and hypotheticals. Unless you have a contrary reliable source that you'd like to introduce please refrain from soapboxing. Also, please introduce new sections at the bottom of the discussion page and utilize exitsing subsections when possible. Lastly, siimply isgn your posts with four tildes as has already been instructed on your talk page. Thanks. TomPointTwo (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You dismissed the previous comments without addressing them. What existing section would you prefer this in? The comments were signed with four tildes (look up). Please familiarize yourself with the WP:OUT policy as you have already been instructed to do and perhaps edit your comments to bring them in line with that policy. I find it difficult to take constructive advice from someone that does not comply with the rules he/she "soapboxes". I think it would be counterproductive to admonish each other for procedural issues due to conflicts of interests. Thank you. Thugdog Nasty (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)— Thugdog Nasty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Are these these paragraphs you use to support your editorialized intro?

"Not a political party, McGinn’s loose coalition ranges from nightclub owners and musicians, who rocked the Crocodile Cafe last fall to raise funds for his campaign, to the 13,000-member Cascade Bicycle Club, which backs the mayor’s plan to add bike lanes over the opposition of truckers.

Whether this coalition—tilted to the young and globally conscious—will permanently displace the old guard remains to be seen. But it’s helping steer decisions that matter to the business community, on everything from policing to transportation. And it’s no longer dismissed as fringe.

“These new actors are legitimate, numerically important and politically very skilled,” said David Olson, University of Washington emeritus political science professor. “So to that extent, we’ve got a new game.” Thugdog Nasty (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)— Thugdog Nasty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Look dude, I've been pretty cool with you so far. When you showed up after prompting from a local political blog about how your boy wasn't being adequately represented in his article and I extended a helping hand and offered to help you figure out how things worked here. I've been pretty docile while you slung mud and after being here for all of an hour accused me of acting in bad faith. At some point though (around this point in fact) I'm just going to be done with having abuse heaped on me by someone who doesn't know up from down around here. You don't understand WP:OUT. Outing covers the disclosure of personal information about people that they haven't volunteered here. I haven't done that, don't pretend you know what you're talking about when you haven't even bothered to read the policy in question. Teh wording in that sentence is pulled nearly verbatim from the RS. If you'd like to introduce some additional sources go for it. My advice is to stop throwing bombs. TomPointTwo (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The mayor is not "my boy". I found this response to be aggressive, offensive, and unhelpful. I am sure that you did not intend for it to be. Were the quoted paragraphs used to support the wording of the introduction? I am asking because I think that they could be rewritten in a more neutral and balanced way while using the same source which is ostensibly agreed by all to be reliable. There is no need to be hostile. I am confident that we all want to see the most neutral and balanced articles on Wikipedia. Thanks. Thugdog Nasty (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)— Thugdog Nasty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Could we perhaps add something along the lines of "in addition other groups" or a similar wording to the list you have outlined so that it does not appear to be inclusive of all supporters? Thugdog Nasty (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)— Thugdog Nasty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thank you for your clarification of WP:OUT. I realize now that I was incorrectly admonished as my specificity was far less than that which you have posted. I implied that you were associated with a vague group and did not even include a URL. I will take that up with the appropriate party, using your response as a reference if you do not mind. Heretofore, I will stick to the subject at hand. A more neutral entry. Would you be open to a more balanced rewrite, starting with the suggestion above? Thugdog Nasty (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)— Thugdog Nasty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Photo

I just wanted to mention that I recently took several good pictures of McGinn, which are now in Commons:Category:Michael McGinn. It is possible that one of these (or perhaps a crop of one of these) would make a better picture for the article; someone may want to take a look. I leave the decision to someone else. - Jmabel | Talk 06:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Those are great photos, thanks for putting in the work. I propose we add this one. It's a good profile, he takes center stage and it illustrates that he's changed a lot in the past couple years. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Critique of the article

Disclosure: Like Michael McGinn, I am a member of the Sierra Club. However, I had never heard of him until reading his Wikipedia biography a few months ago, and know nothing about Seattle municipal politics other than what I have learned while studying this article. My concerns about this article have nothing to do with the Sierra Club.

Our Policy on biographies of living people states, in part:

Tone

BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject, and in some circumstances what the subject has published about himself. . .

Criticism and praise

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.

The quotes from WP:BLP end here, and my opinion of the article begins. This biography of a living person, the current mayor of Seattle, does not comply with our core policies on fairness and neutrality. Here are a few representative quotes from the article: "deal breaker", "political conflict", "stiff resistance", "discomfort", "stoking populist anger", "BS", "voter's ignorance", "wild accusations", "mismanaged", "alarmed", "disorganized", "makes things up", "dishonest", "impractical", "slashed", "controversial", "tone deaf", "a horror show", "scary", "mandatory doubling" "despite campaign promises", and "failure". Taken together, this group of quotes is incompatible with the neutral point of view. I am well aware that many (though not all) of these quotes are properly referenced, but the image conveyed by the selection of dozens of quotes critical of McGinn is that pretty much everyone with brains in Seattle opposes him and his policies, and almost no one has anything positive to say about him. Particularly striking is the lack of quotes from McGinn himself. Though the article contains many quotes, it has only a one-sentence quote from McGinn on marijuana legalization and a one word quote on his attitude toward bicycles. It is as if the subject of the article isn't allowed to defend himself against the wide range of accusations leveled against him in this article. And quotes from McGinn's supporters are strikingly rare in comparison to quotes from his political opponents and critics.

For some strange reason, the article devotes much more attention to McGinn's primary election victory than to his general election victory. It describes his win as an "upset" without attributing that to a reliable source. The article describes McGinn's "political conflict" with "moderate environmentalists" without a reference to a reliable source, implying that McGinn must therefore be an immoderate environmentalist. McGinn's political positions are consistently described with labels bearing negative connotations, such as "anti-tunnel stance".

The article uses the word "controversial" four times to describe McGinn aids David Hiller and Beth Hester, although the sources used as references don't use the word "controversial" to describe either of them.

The article contains misrepresentations of what the referenced source actually says. For example, the article says, "McGinn campaigned on removing control of Seattle schools from local, elected school boards and placing it under the purview of appointed officials from City Hall". The source, on the other hand, says, "In his first two years in office, he would 'work with parents, teachers, administrators...if after two years, we can't make demonstrable progress, I think it's time to take a look at city control of schools'", a much more nuanced and conditional position.

The article says McGinn has been described as "conducting a 'war on cars'". The Fox News source says, "It’s being called by some, Seattle’s war on cars". Who is the source of the "war on cars" catch phrase? "Some" people. And who is waging that war, according to some people? "Seattle", not Mike McGinn.

Another tactic used in writing this article is to take a reliable source, extract a negative nugget, and then ignore anything positive in the source. One example is State of the mayor: McGinn touts goals as he jabs at tunnel, which contains the following lines:

"He did a solid job touting his upcoming Families and Education Levy, making a compelling case for programs serving low-income and minority families. It remains a difficult sell because the price tag doubled. The mayor, who lost 45 pounds, was well dressed and well coifed and delivered his 50-minute address in his calm, lawyerly tone. To his credit, he did not duck challenges facing the police department. Violent crime is down in Seattle but so is trust between police and the community."

None of that positive tone made it into the article.

In conclusion, this article needs a dramatic rewrite with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP at the forefront of all editorial decisions. Otherwise, the article should be renamed Criticisms of Michael McGinn. At least that would be an honest title. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a comprehensive start on getting that tag taken down, thanks for all the work so far.

To respond to the first issue, that of seemingly editorial phrasing. The first part of the simple answer is already embedded in your post: most of it is direct quoting from relevant authorities or involved parties concerning the topic at hand. It's not commentary from editors, it verbatim quoting from reliable sources. The last part of the simple answer is the few remaining are efforts to conceptualize larger concepts into more prose friendly portions such as "deal breaker", "political conflict" and "stiff resistance". I don't view any of these as being inherently POV but if you'd like to take another look at the sources and find an alternate phrase please go ahead and be bold and make the change. I'm sure it'll be fine and if not we can always tackle them one at a time.

I don't really see a lop sided amount of coverage of the primary but a more substantial amount of media was generated of it than his eventual general election victory because of its improbability according the the conventional wisdom of the time and the fact that the incumbent mayor failed to clear that primary, an unusual event. Several of the sources described McGinn's advancement as an "upset" and, although I don;t recall using that language myself, I also don't see it as inherently biased language. I'll double check sources for a inline citation.

The hiring and salaries of both Hiller and Hester were identified as being "controversial" by every news organization that covered them. I suppose it's possible that some pieces used as cites didn't have it verbatim (I'm haven't looked yet) but very quickly from Google for reference: [5][6][7][8][9][10].

I can see the disconnect on the schools issue. McGinn did make his desire to see schools brought under City Hall's control well known but if you'd like to amend the language in place I don't see an issue.

There are multiple sources describing McGinn's transportation policy as a "war on cars" and they're in the article. I'm unsure of your issue with on this particular point.

On your final point I'll point out that is an editorial piece. An editorial piece that was actually used to source a statement by Mr McGinn (something there is more in this article than I think you're asserting). To use the rest of it such as describing how better looking he is after is weight loss or his improved his tone was during a speech would be innappropriate. To be honest I'm unsure of what other portion of that you could use. Most of the compliments were rather back handed and not really compenting on something of substance but if you wanted to cite how the Seattle Times thought his second State of the City speech was better than his first I suppose that would be alright.

The final barb doesn't help. You've made a serious effort at improving this article and I'd like to work to meet you half way. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I have struck out the comment that you described as a "final barb". Let's work together to ensure that this biography of a living person doesn't include excessive "barbs" directed at Mike McGinn. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Another Sierra Club member weighing in here. I haven't gone over the article in detail but from what I've seen I largely agree with Cullen's comments. WP:BLP certainly doesn't require that criticism of a living person be automatically removed, but WP:NPOV calls for fair reporting of significant opinions on the subject. That doesn't mean that every single criticism of McGinn must be quoted. There can be a situation where there are half a dozen reported negative opinions about someone, any one of which would be appropriate for inclusion in the article, but the inclusion of all of them is improper.

Also, the selection of facts seems to be routinely skewed against McGinn. For example, "Down in the polls during the final days of his campaign for Mayor McGinn came out with a promise...." followed by the description of actions allegedly contrary to the promise. It violates WP:SYNTH as well as WP:NPOV for us to juxtapose these facts so as to suggest that he made the promise because he was down in the polls and that it was purely a political move. It would be better to present his actions as Mayor, a summary of the supportive opinion, and a summary of the opinion criticizing his decision on the merits. If there is significant opinion charging that his campaign promise was insincere, that would be eligible for reporting (i.e., "Republican City Council member ____ charged that McGinn had never had any intention of etc."). Wikipedia certainly shouldn't adopt that opinion, expressly or by implication, and possibly shouldn't report it; by saying it was "eligible" for inclusion I meant that a properly attributed opinion wouldn't be our own synthesis but might not be important enough for inclusion.

Speaking of importance, I don't see why his major weight loss should be excluded. Politically concerned editors sometimes fall into the error of treating a politician's article as a compendium of facts relevant to a decision whether to vote for him or against him. It's a bio, not a campaign analysis, and notable personal events should be included. Mike Huckabee's (much larger) weight loss has its own section in his bio, so a passing mention here doesn't seem out of line.

Unfortunately, the most important step toward balancing the article is the most difficult -- doing the research to document the more favorable facts about McGinn, an aspect of the article that appears to have attracted less editorial enthusiasm thus far. In general, an article that's unbalanced by virtue of its selection of facts should be balanced by inclusion of additional facts, not by removal of those that are there. JamesMLane t c 17:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The tunnel "flip-flop" (forgive me) is a pretty common charge leveled against him, I'll check for sources that tie it all together. Maybe combing through existing sources will provide some more positive coverage. As I've stated previously genuinely positive coverage of the Mr McGinn can be hard to find. He's a pretty unpopular guy, including with most of the major local media outlets. Sometimes coverage of someone seems really negative but in actuality they're just that unpopular. The guy has 75% disapproval rating. A couple popular descriptions from local political pundits, on all sides of the spectrum, is "toxic" and "one term mayor". Still, I'm sure we can do more. I know some good things were said about his support for the recent education levy (which has passed since I added the original entry). He got some mixed press on Occupy as well, a subject that I haven't yet added. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A quick update: Here's an original piece on the primary tunnel shift[11] making pretty clear the context and here's the Seattle Time's Joni Balter being much more forthright[12]. There's quite a bit of material to be found on it with his name and "tunnel flip flop" or "tunnel primary" with Google. Reading over much of it again though I'd say that the City Council vote prior to his repositioning on the tunnel probably warrants mention. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A further neutrality issue

"McGinn asserts that the only way to make people change their behavior is to make it more difficult for them to drive and park." This is attributed to a FOX News broadcast. No transcript or video clip is linked. I strongly suspect that it is, at best, a hostile paraphrase of something McGinn said. If it is to remain in the article it should have a much better citation, or at least a checkable source. - Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Dan Springer's presumably related blog entry makes no such assertion. - Jmabel | Talk 06:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It was a verbatim transcription of a statement by the newscaster (who was not Dan Springer) which was presented as if it were a quote. If memory serves McGinn was not on camera for that portion of the segment so it might have been a paraphrasing of McGinn but it was not presented as such. The segment used to be hosted, I'll see if I can find it again. Sorry I haven't been super active, I've been busy enough to have to edit in tiny spurts. TomPointTwo (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The citation says "Dan Springer", so if you say it was not him then the present citation is even weaker than I said above. - Jmabel | Talk 17:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It's been a week and no better citation is forthcoming. I have removed this sentence. If you can cite better for it, feel free to re-add it. - Jmabel | Talk 16:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that's appropriate, I've been so busy and not able to rectify or research the cite. If I can't figure out where in the edit log the original, correct ref got removed I'll put in a request to the TV station. Regardless of how it turns out thanks for your patience, a week was pretty darn charitable. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The tunnel

Unless I'm misreading, despite extensive discussion in the article of the politics surrounding the proposed SR-99 tunnel, there is no mention of one of McGinn's main arguments against the tunnel proposal as it stands, an argument especially prominent in his continued opposition to the project once in office: the possibility that Seattle taxpayers could be hit with the bill for any overruns on a project that is not even under the city's control. Surely that should be added if the article is to be more of an encyclopedia article and less of an attack piece. - Jmabel | Talk 06:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've now somewhat addressed this. I couldn't find clear quotes from the campaign, but I could from 2010. - Jmabel | Talk 04:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I slightly toned down "Since taking office McGinn has consistently made efforts to stop construction of the tunnel" (emphasis mine) to say repeatedly rather than consistently. The citation given is weak even for "repeatedly" (it is a 4-paragraph item about a veto threat, the same veto we discuss further down), though I think the statement is accurate. It would be good to have something that actually shows he has done something to obstruct more than once if we are going to say "repeatedly"; I don't see how we can ever neutrally say "consistently" in the article's own narrative voice, though it would be possible to cite (and attribute) a third party saying that. - Jmabel | Talk 04:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Holmes and the tunnel referendum

Is it really relevant for a biographical article on McGinn that City Attorney Pete Holmes was of the opinion that the McGinn-supported tunnel referendum wasn't eligible for the ballot, given that Holmes was overruled, and the referendum went to the ballot? I'd really like to remove the two sentences on that. They are adequately cited for, but they seem more of a distraction than a relevant part of a biographical article. They would belong in an article on that referendum, if someone wants to write that. - Jmabel | Talk 04:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. If we have no article on the referendum yet, the cited information should go into the article about the tunnel controversy. It doesn't belong in McGinn's biography, in my opinion. By the way, Jmabel, thanks for your work on this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree in regards to the location of this particular item. --Greg Nevers (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's give it a couple of days before removing anything. I think this is a case where "be bold" is not the best advice: the article has clearly been a bit of a battleground, so I'm a bit hesitant to remove anything substantive that someone else considered relevant. But I suspect (without looking at the history) that all that was added when it was very current, and looks less important in retrospect. - 06:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think people have had adequate time to weigh in, I'm removing it. - Jmabel | Talk 01:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If anyone does an article where it is more relevant, the text and citations are: Seattle City Attorney [[Pete Holmes]], asked the King County Superior Court to review whether the tunnel agreement was administrative or legislative in nature.<ref>{{cite news|title=Seattle city attorney sues over tunnel referendum |author=Associated Press |newspaper=[[The Columbian]] |url=http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/mar/29/Seattle-city-attorney-sues-over-tunnel-referendum/}}</ref> It is the position of Holmes' office that the agreement is administrative in nature and so not eligible for a referendum.<ref>{{cite news|title=Seattle city attorney moves to block anti-tunnel referendum |author=Lynne Thompson |newspaper=Seattle Times |url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2014628370_city_attorney_moves_to_block_a.html |date=March 29, 2011}}</ref> - Jmabel | Talk 01:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Majority Section.

No other Mayor of a major city shows the majority of the vote they received in an election in the info box. Being cited does not matter. No politicians have this detail in their info box. It is just unnecessary and makes the info box too long, and is not a vital detail that should be included in the info box. It takes away from the article in a sense. What will you do next election? Include both? It is just not done, and not important enough to include. I focus almost exclusively on political pages and have never seen this before. Unless a clear majority can agree that this should be there then I see no reason to include it. Thanks. --Politicsislife (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Is your argument WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST? Why is it that you think, because other articles do not yet have this information, it should be removed from the infobox of this particular article? Has there been some sort of a discussion where a group of editors of biographies of politicians reached consensus that this should be kept out of infoboxes? What objective criteria do you use to judge that an infobox is "too long", or is it just your personal opinion? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If there is a consensus NOT to include the majority parm, we can remove it, but it doesn't work the other way around. I also think the field is actually more informative than many fields in infoboxes. Although I acknowledge it is not often used (just based on random searches I've done because there are way too many politician articles to search them all), I did find a couple: Michael Gove and Gordon Marsden. In any event, as Cullen says, it doesn't really matter what other articles do. We are just evaluating the field in this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

To answer both, it is mainly my personal opinion, however I can provide a few examples of articles in which it was added and then removed if you would like. I understand this is its own article, however I have literally read thousands of political articles here and have almost solely edited political articles in my wikipedia career, and it just so happens I mainly focus on info boxes, sections and templets, and I can honestly tell you this is done extremely rarely, almost never really. Mayor McGinn is actually the only one of the Mayor's of the 50 most populated cities to have this in their box for one. It adds nothing to the box, and is mentioned in the lead of the article anyway. I object to this as well because if this was a common technique then a politician who won with a high percentage of the vote and had it listed it could suggest popularity, even if they were no longer popular any longer. Or the opposite, if they won with a plurality in a multi candidate race it could suggest weakness even if they had improved their numbers while in office. A sort of bias in and of itself, and bias does not belong on wikipedia. That doesn't really apply here much, but the principal still stands. Also how are you going to create a second majority box if Mayor McGinn wins a second term in office? It adds much complications and takes away from the lead. I have no particular interest in Mayor McGinn, but I try and better all articles I see, and I will do so here as well. Thanks and happy new year to you both. --Politicsislife (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of your points make little sense to me. All information in the infobox is normally in the body. The infobox is intended to provide "at-a-glance" information that is already in the article. If a politician wins with a high percentage of the vote, it means whatever the reader thinks that means. The fact that you speculate that some readers might think he is popular now, as opposed to popular when he was elected, is irrelevant. The converse is also true. There's nothing misleading about the information. As for your point about a second term, we could deal with that easily by referring to each election as there's no particular format to the field. We're all interested in improving articles, but sometimes we disagree on what's appropriate. Because this is not a policy-driven discussion and because there is no harm being done by the field, to remove it will require a consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this makes sense to be removed. Listing the total vote won can be misleading at first glance in my view as well. I also agree the box looks rather large, to the sense it is distracting. So removing it gets my vote. --Greg Nevers (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that given Seattle's somewhat unusual electoral system, this is probably even less useful than elsewhere, in that the primary election in Seattle is more like a general election in most constituencies, and the general more like a runoff. - Jmabel | Talk 20:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If I am correct the majority of users here seem to support the move so unless more objections arise I think the section should be removed. --Politicsislife (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Majority isn't the correct standard in these discussions, but, that quibble aside, I think there's enough support for your position to justify the removal.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

WSJ profile

I've been way too busy to really participate in this article's rewrite (or any other serious wikipedia activity) but I ran across a profile of McGinn and his tenure in the WSJ and figured you guys would want to incorporate it into the article. He's pretty much 0 for 2 on national profiles (the other being him getting slammed in the NYT politics blog) but I'm sure it has some "bird's eye view" type relevance. Cheers, guys. TomPointTwo (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's see, that's an opinion piece, isn't it? An opinion piece in a newspaper with an editorial stance directly opposite to McGinn's should be used with the utmost of restraint, can't we all agree? News coverage in the WSJ remains reliable, at least until the current Murdoch ownership of the paper finishes transforming the entire newspaper into a rag. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that news coverage in WSJ should be considered reliable. Opinion pieces should be considered for inclusion if other reliable sources comment on that specific opinion piece. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of hostility. Kaminski is part of the editorial board of the WSJ, the second most influential editorial board in the United States. This piece was written for the Cross Country feature of the paper, a feature that profiles the national political landscape. It's not like it's an op-ed. The article does an excellent job of succinctly highlighting many of the most high profile issues of McGinn's tenure. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The story is labeled "opinion". Please explain how that differs from "op-ed". There is no hostility whatsover in pointing out that opinion is opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's in the opinion section of the site because it didn't come out of the news room, it came from Kaminski, who's on the editorial board. Generally an op-ed is a opinion piece submitted to the paper as an expression of a certain person's position on a topic. This is a political profile by a member of the WSJ's editorial board. Editorials, or op-eds for that matter, are not excluded as reliable sources from wikipedia. TomPointTwo (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. A while back you were telling me about how less than half-a-dozen papers covered McGinn, and the respectable ones all were negative about him, but the free-and-handed-out-by-beggarshomeless people ones were the ones that were positive about him? So it was hard to find balanced coverage?

Do I misremember, or has he moved up in the world in a huge way? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, as far as I know, he's only been profiled twice at the national level, once in the NYT and once now by the WSJ. I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you're refering to Real Change with the "beggars" reference they're not beggars and it's not a newspaper. The "distributors" work for commission and Real Change is a, largely, one man advocacy group .TomPointTwo (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

An opinion piece by Matthew Kaminski or any other pundit is a reliable source for only one thing, and that is to describe Matthew Kaminski's opinion (or any pundit's opinion). It can't be used to state or imply that McGinn is widely unpopular, but only to report accurately that Matthew Kaminski doesn't like McGinn. If included, we ought to balance Kaminski's opinion by quoting a pundit who does like McGinn. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

As for your assertion that Real Change is "not a newspaper", please furnish a reliable source for that. Our article describes it as a newspaper, and the Seattle Weekly said in 2005 that the publication had "changed in impressive fashion in recent months. The paper went to a weekly format, underwent a redesign, and hired two journalists part time. Now Real Change looks great and is filled with real news about what's going on in Seattle—news that other publications sometimes miss. Though it's not just a homeless paper anymore, its mission of promoting social justice and its advocacy for the homeless remains unchanged." It looks like a newspaper to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure I'd call him a "pundit." He's as much a jounrnalist as anyone else whose work has landed outside the "A" section of a paper. Per the very old and still relevant policies on the matter, the article is sourcable. It even involves original reporting, including an interview he did with McGinn. Did you read the article? On Real Change you only have to look up WP:RS. Real Change is an advocacy rag (not to use the term pejoratively) with no independent editorial oversight. It doesn't exist to cover news, it exists to push a socio-political agenda. Also, please don't cite wikipedia articles as reliable sources, esp on the topic of themselves. It doesn't take a real sleuth to look through the edit history of that article to uncover who wrote it.

Look, either way if you don't want to use the article than don't, more the shame but it's your prerogative. I'll get around to it when I have the time to look over this article again. In the mean time do (or don't) as you wish. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Seattle Times just mentioned the piece and its original reporting. TomPointTwo (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michael McGinn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090922170359/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/html/politics/2009882057_mcginnlightrail17m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2009882057_mcginnlightrail17m.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michael McGinn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110716025750/http://www.seattlechamber.com/portal/page?_pageid=33,2952&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_news_id=12711&p_news_current= to http://www.seattlechamber.com/portal/page?_pageid=33,2952&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_news_id=12711&p_news_current=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Past/Present Tense

This article is all over map regarding past and present tense. McGinn hasn't been mayor for about 3 three years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3023:808:200:79A9:B230:20D5:D587 (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael McGinn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110806234956/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2010238350_webmayor10.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2010238350_webmayor10.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.seattlechamber.com/portal/page?_pageid=33%2C2952&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_news_id=12711&p_news_current=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael McGinn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724112801/http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2009/10/mcginns_campaign_successfully.php to http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2009/10/mcginns_campaign_successfully.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091227071332/http://mcginnformayor.com/endorsements/ to http://mcginnformayor.com/endorsements/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

About son

Hey all, I have moved the news about his son to early life section, even though it warrants a specific personal life section. It was in the lede, which is not the place for it per WP:LEDE. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)