Talk:Terry McAuliffe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Picture

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

"Controversey's"

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

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

Lincoln Bedroom controversy and Coffeegate

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

• Other CNN links: [http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/02/25/clinton.money/contributors.html CNN, Top Lincoln Bedroom Donors to the Democratic National Committee, Jan. 1, 1995-Dec. 31, 1996
• CNN Clinton Ok'd Using Lincoln Bedroom For Contributors

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

• The CNN report differs with you.Telecine Guy 04:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Did you read th CNN link ref? The CNN report is clear and about Terry's role in selling the coffees and Lincoln Bedroom

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

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

None used

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

None used

• Threats of legal action.

None used

• Threats of violence, particularly death threats.

None used

• Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages.

None used

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

None used

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

Ok, fair enough. I went ahead and included the text and added balance to make clear that there was never any wrongdoing proven. I don't think wikipedia should be a place to discuss unproven, baseless political charges; while we might disagree on that point, i am certain you will agree that for a living person, the fact there was never any wrongdoing proven needs to be made clear. Journalist1983 03:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ! Your edit looks very good, You are value to Wikipedia! I only add the CNN refs. Telecine Guy 19:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Wish you would have left well-enough alone and not tried to add more links on this non-issue. My edits were meant to be a compromise, based in part on your content above. But I disagreed with their inclusion (see above "I don't think wikipedia should be a place to discuss unproven, baseless political charges"), a position mangos08 apparently shares. I re-read your text above re "attacks" and researched it. You were quoting from a portion of wikipedia that deals with attacks among editors. No one ever accused you of attacking editors; hence the inclusion of the material above, which I have noted you're fond of doing re other entries, is irrelevant to this discussion and should be removed. Finally, you cited CNN. I went ahead and read the links you cite, and I completely disagree with your conclusion. In fact, I think the material you offer supports the premise that this was a partisan witch hunt from the beginning, not worthy of dredging up for political points in an encyclopedia. Since you were citing support from an irrelevant section; since the CNN material you supplied does nothing but support the conclusion there was never a case here, then I believe for a living person we should err on the side of caution and I removed the compromise text and the links. Journalist1983 03:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Picking your one Time Ref is a compromise? I did not touch your text. Pick one of the four CNN Ref I listed would be a compromise. Picking your one Times ref is not.Telecine Guy 05:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• I was wrong to include it, and did so only reluctantly and based on text you misrepesented. Why don't you include the fact that he once confused musician paul simon with senator paul simon? This issue might be relevant on a bio that is several pages long; it does not rise to the level of a wikipedia article. Why don't you insert a reference into repubs who held the hearing that wasted time?

trivia section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post-convention bounce

(transferred from user talk pages)

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

(Journalist1983's response deleted per Journalist1983.)

Hi Journalist, it sounds like you're a busy person -- I'm not asking you to do any research you don't want to do. But it's not accurate to say "polls" when all you have provided is a single poll. Perhaps other polls agreed with the Washington-Post ABC Poll. But unless a reference is provided, that's conjecture. Polls often disagree wildly.

I also do not think that "20 points" is a fair way to describe the change in the poll: Many people would not describe a change from 43% to 50% as a "20-point bounce" -- and even when you add the delta of the opponent's numbers (52% to 45%) you are still only looking at a change from 9 points behind to 5 points ahead, i.e. 14 points. If a number is used that is different from the ones that actually appear in the source, I think it is important -- in the service of verifiability -- that the means of calculating the number are made explicit, i.e. "the Democratic ticket received a bounce in the polls, overcoming a 9 point deficit to lead the Republican ticket by 5 points" or even "the Democratic ticket received a 14-point bounce in the polls relative to the Republican ticket".

If you'd like to take a crack at either of these issues, please do. In the mean time, I'm tagging the section as disputed. -- Shunpiker (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. CNN described the post-convention polls as showing "an eight-point convention bounce". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shunpiker (talk • contribs) 03:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sourced poll says on 8/20/00, Gore/Bush at 50/45. On 8/6/00, same source showed 40/54. In a two-week period, Gore went from 14pts down to 5 pts up. That's a 19pt movement. I agree that one can play with the numbers and reinterpret. I have removed your box and have added "significant."Journalist1983 (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

NPOV

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

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion [emphasis added], from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.[2]

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"

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

Here was some of your text:

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

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

You other edits were also problematic.

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

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

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

If you have disagreements with other editors on this or any other article, you need to consider more collaborative measures before you make wholesale reverts. If you "don't have enough hours in the day to examine what was wrong" with GoldDragon's edits, then you have no business reverting them. That's not WP:BLP; that's just prejudice. -- Shunpiker (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC) (Note: Journalist1983's comment above was addressed to me when I wrote this. Shunpiker (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

As stated, accept my apologies. Never meant to mention you, and I quickly caught the mistake. Cheers, Journalist1983 (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries. -- Shunpiker (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I agreed with your comment, and changed to reflect better tone.Journalist1983 (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The material is not questionable, though it might be controversial, as it was reported in the New York Times and National Review. WP BLP refers to rumours, particularly unsourced. GoldDragon (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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

I took a stab at rewriting the "Controversies" section. I agree that there were problems in the writing before, but I also think that the McAuliffe page is incomplete without a mention of some matters that he has been criticized for. Please flag any sections that you think could use further attention. Thanks -- Shunpiker (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the global crossing is much, much better, and i appreciate the effort. And am open to a further discussion on it, although i must say the assessment is so fair and balanced that it proves my point -- this a partisan attack that never had any beef behind it, and i am not sure it's worthy of WP inclusion. No wrongdoing is even alleged. It's not illegal or unethical to make money. Also, the $18 million number is completely unsourceable. Let me know if you have seen his 1040 for that year. as far as i am aware, he has not commented on the number. I am aware that he has commented that he's made lots of investments that lost money, but nobody ever asks him about those investments.

I don't get the moore thing. he wasn't named as a plaintiff; no wrongdoing was alleged. That's not even relevant to his biography unless you can articulate what wrongdoing he did or at least was accused of doing.

the New York stuff is so obscure i don't think it's even on the Republicans' top ten hit parade about mcauliffe. Again, I intend to keep reverting, per WP:living persons, till we work this out on a talk page. If you want to propose text that includes the global crossing and anything else others think is fair game, pls. do so on this page. I know you think some criticism is merited just, well, just because I guess. But he's not an elected official and he's not been even accused of wrongdoing. If other alleged controversies are as well done as your global crossing, and brief (controversies should not dwarf the article, which they do now), then let's have a go at it below and see what consensus, if any, we can achieve. Journalist1983 (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Journalist1983 for keeping an open mind. That said: You need to get out of the habit of reverting the article every time that you don't completely agree with someone else's contributions. That's not how Wikipedia works. I have restored my edits. If you'd like to make incremental changes or challenges -- be my guest! Really. We've worked out disagreements before and I think we can do it again. But lay off the reverts. If you obliterate good faith contributions by others, you're running afoul of the rules, and you will be held accountable. -- Shunpiker (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

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

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

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

NPOV tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global Crossing

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

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

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

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

"Global Crossing" rewrite

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

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

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

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

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

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

1983, I object to broad and indiscriminate reverts, but I have consistently supported and encouraged a cooperative process of incremental editing. At this point, I'd like to suggest that we make a request for informal mediation. If that fails to bring consensus, and you'd like to make a request for formal mediation, I would support that as well. -- Shunpiker (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Regrettably, Dragon's sincerity is laughable. "incremental editing"? Chortle. As in Dragon and you make one-sided partisan attacks and then tweak them to mask their real purpose. Note Dragon's comment above: "While we are playing by the rules, you are breaking them and others less forgiving may consider this as vandalism. I won't consider your offer, nor any meaningful discussion, unless you stop reverting." How is he playing by the rules but I am not? He removed a box without asking, pretending as if it was only one section that had been messed with. I stopped reverting as he and you requested, yet your reverts and his keep going. Nor does Dragon appear to be "considering my offer," as promised above. Piker, you put a warning box on my talk page but didn't on his. How fair are you really. You are always welcome to do whatever you want. As has been my position, Dragon added the one-sided, absurd partisan attack content and he should fix it and you should support the position to remove it pending discussion.Journalist1983 (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi 1983, I'm sorry that you don't see my contributions as made in good faith. For what it's worth, it wasn't GoldDragon who "removed a box without asking, pretending as if it was only one section that had been messed with" -- I changed the "disputed" tag to "disputed-section," and I did it because the tag had been applied to a section of the article rather than the top, so I assumed that's what you meant. I see that you have changed the tag back to "disputed" and moved it to the top of the article. That's fine. I second your right to dispute the whole article.

GoldDragon has not been reverting other people's edits to the article -- he has only been un-reverting reverts to his edits. He has also shown himself willing to discuss changes to the article without (un-)reverting. So have you, but that wasn't clear to me when I issued the warning. I didn't do it to offend you, but to give you a fair notice that you were running up against the 3 revert rule.

I agree with you that the first version of the section on Global Crossing had serious problems. After it had been reverted back and forth, I joined in to fix some of the most glaring issues. On receiving a third opinion, I saw that it would take more work and I withdrew my edits. When I found some time, I researched and rewrote the section from scratch, with the goals of: 1.) establishing that McAuliffe received notable scrutiny for his relationship with Global Crossing; 2.) taking care not imply anything beyond what is explicit in the sources about McAuliffe's relationship with Global Crossing.

I think there's more work to be done, but I don't see how it helps to remove the whole section while we do that work. I think that there are adequate sources to show that there has been considerable attention to McAuliffe's relationship with Global Crossing in the mainstream press, and that the magnitude of his business interest (a profit that has been estimated from $9 to $18 million dollars) along with the possible impact on his political activity (as noted by Frank Rich and Rick Perlstein) make this a notable episode in McAuliffe's career and public life. I agree with you that McAuliffe has not been charged with illegal or unethical activity in respect to Global Crossing, and if that's not clear from the way that the section is currently written, we should find a way to make it clear. But illegal or unethical conduct is not necessary to make this matter notable. It's also worth pointing out that just because a controversy is exploited for partisan gain, that doesn't make it un-notable. Any political scandal invariably receives more attention from the faction which has not been compromised.

I sincerely appreciate your willingness to engage in discussion. I understand that you don't feel that your objections are being met, and I'd like to do my part to address that. Are there any steps listed under dispute resolution that you feel would help to make your case? -- Shunpiker (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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

1983, I agree with you about ongoing reverts -- the policy on edit warring is clear that the 3RR rule is "not intended as an exemption for all conduct that stays under the threshold". That's what you mean by "ongoing reverts," right? The policy forbids "a pattern of isolated blind reverts as a first resort in response to disagreeable edits". I think that's been a problem in this article, and I'd like to see it end.

If I understand you correctly, your position is that you're not willing to discuss your specific differences with the material as long as it appears in the article. Is that correct? -- Shunpiker (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to see the reverts end, then post your warning on everyone who has been reverting. this process started out with you making overtures to dragon. you can't be trusted as a fair person till you warn dragon. what are you waiting for? Journalist1983 (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

1983, I don't understand what you see as "overtures to dragon". As far as I can tell, this process started when you confused me with GoldDragon, which was odd, because I hadn't edited the page for a month, and even then my quibbles were minor and I think we came to a reasonable compromise.

If you think GoldDragon ought to be warned for something, you have the same right to issue a warning that I do -- although it's worth noting that he hasn't edited the article or the talk page for more than two weeks now. I disagree with some of the content he posted -- and I discussed those differences. But I didn't see him reverting others' contributions to the article. I also saw him using the talk page as an alternative to making reverts of any kind. I'm sorry if you don't trust me as a "fair person", but I'm not going to do anything that I would consider unfair to bargain for that trust.

What I can offer to you is my full cooperation in any of Wikipedia's processes for dispute resolution. If you don't think I am fair, let's bring in a mediator. I'll make the request myself if you like, or second your request. -- Shunpiker (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Mochi08, welcome to Wikipedia. You seem to know your way around. You're not related by any chance to Mangos2008, are you? I reverted the deletion of the section when I saw there was no edit summary (something else in common with Mangos2008), but I didn't see Mochi's explanation here, so my edit summary is in error. I stand by the edit, however.

I'm not satisfied that Mochi is justified in reverting the text. I think there are still improvements to be made, but hack-and-slash reverting is not going to get us there. "Completely inaccurate" is an exaggeration at best. Would you like to be more specific about what is inaccurate? When you do, can you indicate whether you think that the sources are contradicted by other sources, or whether material from the sources are not accurately represented?

It seems unlikely to me that a new user should suddenly appear, intervene in the content dispute, make a revert and then join in the discussion. But in any case: Mochi, let me extend the same invitation to you that I have made to Journalist1983. Let's have some "action". Let's get more users involved. Let's invoke Wikipedia's policies on dispute resolution. This article should reflect Wikipedia's policies, and I will enthusiastically join any effort to see that it does. -- Shunpiker (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Restored content

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

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

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

Controversies

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

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

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

The importance of Wikipedia's BLP policy cannot be understated. But it should not be used to suppress fair and notable criticism. That said, the "Controversies" section could use some more work.

The phrase "criticized by political commentators" taken by itself, would be "weasel words". But that's out of context. 69.143.164.143 asks, "Criticized for what?" But the answer is in the rest of the phrase:

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

This phrase is not "weaselly" because it is clear both who is making a critique and what they are objecting to. Safire and Huffington are qualified as "political commentators" to avoid the impression that they are the only people who have notably voiced such a criticism. They are cited as representative examples. Perhaps it would be better to incorporate more examples in order to avoid "political commentators such as"?

Looking at it again, though, it seems to me that the phrase could be improved by re-writing it in the active voice:

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

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

Revisions

I made a bunch of revisions to the article. Since the article is still disputed, I'm going to take a moment to describe my intention in making various changes.

• I made a few tweaks to neutralize the tone of some language. Example: "Educate, engage and mobilize" sounds more like a slogan than a description to my ears. It became "educate and mobilize".
• I removed the section about "25,000 field precinct captains ... 530 organizing conventions ... 233,000 volunteers ... 1 million doors" and so on. Without sourcing or context, these numbers only function as hyperbole.
• I made an attempt to re-order the section about McAuliffe as DNC chair so that, after the summary at the top, it follows the chronology of his time in office.
• I consolidated the sections which explain the differences between the responsibilities of the DNC, the DSCC, the DCCC and the DGA. It's a worthy point that there are organizations more directly responsible for various elections than the DNC, but it was repeated a lot. I think there's still a repetition, but it will require consolidating the Global Crossing section into the rest of McAuliffe's tenure at the DNC. I don't think either section is stable enough to support that yet.
• I de-weaseled ("McAuliffe drew minor criticism") and de-duplicated the section on the McCall 2002 race. I added information from the source showing McCall's lag in the polls, and that McAuliffe identified other races as priorities for the DNC.
• I moved Frank Rich and Rick Perlstein to the lead of the Global Crossing section. As it was written, it made it sound like Safire and Huffington are the only ones who have taken up this issue, and possibly only because they are or were at one time conservatives.
• The lead had been edited to say that McAuliffe was criticized for making an early investment. It's clear that McAuliffe did just that -- made an early investment -- but that's not an accurate description of the criticism, which takes McAuliffe to task for promoting the company (however informally) and defending his investment -- not just the act of investment.
• I removed the parts that described the suits against Global Crossing. As noted, these aren't relevant to McAuliffe.
• I requested citations for a number of unsourced assertions. I don't doubt that they are true, but they ought to be sourced, particularly if they're intended to contradict or offset assertions that are sourced:
  • That the DNC under McAuliffe contributed more to various races than "any other time in DNC history"
  • That McAuliffe held shares after Global Crossing's bankruptcy
  • That G.H.W. Bush worked for Global Crossing, whereas McAuliffe did not
• I removed some "meta" editorial comments from the body of the article ("Wikipedia editors have not included this event"). I marked at least one "weaselly" passage ("Most believe these two occurrences aren't related") for citation.
• I removed the "Herman v. Moore" section. With the partisan National Review as the only source (and I second the removal of the other sources), the section is not adequately referenced.

Any comments on these changes? Do I dare ask whether we're any closer to a working compromise? Can we at least remove the {{BLPdispute}} tag? While the Global Crossing section may still be embattled, it is not "poorly sourced". Invoking BLP to argue the fine points risks crying wolf. -- Shunpiker (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• go to your local bookstore or library and read pgs 318-320 of the book. there is no story here and you are merely pumping up failed, unfair partisan attacks, which should have no place in wikipedia. And per our earlier discussion, no, i can't make you write this on bush's entry, but I can note the matter on this article till you do put it on bush's. put plainly, wikipedia should not be used for unfair partisan attacks, and if you're going to cite them for posterity because others once did (no one brings this up anymore but you), then we're going to tell the whole story. as for perlstein, read his wikpedia entry and figure it out -- he is not an unbiased source, nor are any attackers, and we need to err on the side of caution because it's a living person. re the rest of the article, i will work on it more later.Journalist1983 (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I did read those pages of the book, via Amazon.com's "Search inside the Book" feature. I read them after reading Perlstein's review of the book, which mentioned that passage. I think it's worth quoting:

You would have thought I'd gone down to Fort Knox and started loading up gold bricks from the U.S. Treasury, the way the Republicans carried on over my investment in Global Crossing. This was their clumsy attempt to get me to back off the Enron scandal, and it was not going to work.

That's McAuliffe's point of view and it belongs in the article. But so do the points of view of Rich and Perlstein: that it did work -- if not in getting McAuliffe to "back off the Enron scandal," by undermining his standing to make an effective attack on Republican ties to Enron.

Whether or not the criticisms of McAuliffe's dealings constitute an unfair partisan attack, they represent a notable controversy. I don't think you would disagree, for example, that the "Willie Horton" issue that G.H.W. Bush used to attack Michael Dukakis in 1988 represented an unfair attack in the partisan interest. But it's historically significant for the coverage it received, and because it may have borne on the results of the election. Global Crossing may represent a similar case.

I support adding the point of view of McAuliffe and those who argue that questioning McAuliffe's ties to Global Crossing is invalid and politically motivated. But only as a point of view. Wikipedia shouldn't take that side. We need to represent other points of view as well. -- Shunpiker (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comparing this to Willy Horton is just plain silly. By the way, the issue had no bearing on the results of an election. Please let me know if you claim expertise in American politics and we can discuss the merits of this matter further. Journalist1983 (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. Rick Perlstein came to a different conclusion and published it. If you'd like to debate the merits of published sources, I'm glad to join you in that discussion. But I'm not going to engage in claims about personal expertise in politics. -- Shunpiker (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

From the beginning, you've been wading into an area you appear to have no expertise. I personally don't desire to "teach" you about American politics, and it's very annoying you persist in making edits and judgments about things you appear to know nothing about. I suggest you move on to editing articles where you have some expertise. On this article, you seem more bent on winning than on fairness or even-handedness, which is most regrettable. Rick Perlstein has an agenda, and it's very easy for anyone to trace this. Wikipedia is not a place for political adversaries to attack each other, and you're wasting your time trying to presume expertise you don't have. Journalist1983 (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry -- I have no interest in your tutelage. But since you fancy yourself an expert, you may want to read up on the history of "expertise" at Wikipedia. It has attracted a charged and long-running debate. Note, however, that expert editors are generally expected to identify themselves and list their credentials. Berating others for their supposedly inferior learning does not suffice.

I earnestly wish that I could satisfy your sense of fairness -- but in this matter, it appears to preclude any criticism of the subject whatsoever. For as long as I have been involved in this article, you have accused each editor who has introduced a critical source (as well as every critical source itself) of bad faith and partisan design. Those tactics make it difficult to negotiate anything but a zero-sum outcome. -- Shunpiker (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

read the article i just posted below from the wash post -- that is a solid, balanced article. The one you and others have been seeking is to make a sleazy, tabloid story of political opportunists. I am willing to write quality, but this is a junky article which seeks to only impugn mcauliffe, not bush and others. Journalist1983 (talk)`

Journalist1983, I don't see much point in continuing to discuss this article with you if you aren't willing to accept the notion that while we do not agree, I am acting in good faith. Berating me for a supposed lack of expertise is not especially civil, and makes no sense given that I have never claimed expertise, and you have not done anything to establish your own claims to expertise.

A couple of notes for those who may or may not be following the edit summaries:

• Regarding Rick Perlstein's review in the New York Times, J1983 summarized, "it's not a NYT review; hope you get some expertise before editing." The article is published in the New York Times, under the header "Sunday Book Review". It doesn't seem to me a stretch, then, to call it a "New York Times review". I don't mind calling it "a review published in the New York Times." But the former phrasing is hardly deserving of such contempt.
• J1983 summarizes, "there is zero opinion that enron cost elections, much less source" and "we don't need a source to correct something not sourced in the first place". Perlstein clearly makes the argument that McAuliffe's relationship with Global Crossing weakened his ability to attack Republicans on Enron, and this hurt the Democrats' electoral chances. You don't have to agree with Perlstein, but it's just not true to say that there is "zero opinion" on this issue or that it is unsourced within the article. I quote the relevant passages in their entirety:

Some hoped that President Bush’s ties to Enron would make 2002 a Democratic year. Instead, Democrats lost the Senate. As the televised face of the party, McAuliffe got in some hard punches on Enron, but Republicans replied that he himself had made an $18 million profit from a mere $100,000 investment in the controversial communications company Global Crossing.

...and...

McAuliffe settles that score by writing, “The S.E.C. ruled after a four-year investigation that nobody had committed any wrongdoing at Global Crossing.” (A Justice Department inquiry was also dropped without charges.) You might say the more proximate wrongdoing was going on TV in an election year in which corporate greed was the Democrats’ best issue and saying a company that had only not quite swindled millions of pensioners and individual investors was “great” — and then being so un-self-aware as to brag about it in your memoir.

I stand by the sourcing of this opinion, but I support Journalist1983 -- or any other editor -- in the incorporation of other published opinions on this matter. --Shunpiker (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Piker, you are taking leaps and licenses that aren't supported by your sources, however POV they might be. I am weary of teaching you, as already noted. You have no business editing on subjects you know nothing or at least very little about. You said, "Perlstein clearly makes the argument that McAuliffe's relationship with Global Crossing weakened his ability to attack Republicans on Enron, and this hurt the Democrats' electoral chances." That is all true. But Perlstein didn't quantify that. You did. In other words, Perlstein, not that he is an authority on electoral politics (he's not), began by stating two facts that aren't objectionable (mcauliffe was under attack, however briefly, and his ability to attack republicans was muted). But what you then leap to -- which even POV perlstein doesn't -- is that Democrats lost the Senate because of that. Perlstein didn't say that, and I defy you to find any source, however wacko or POV, that claims dems lost the senate because mcauliffe couldn't attack on enron. where is your source?? I am still waiting. If you knew what you were talking about, you would realize that mcauliffe's "global crossing" issue had a negligible effect on the Senate elections. By the way, if you want to wade deeper into this morass you're creating, go research the 02 elections and see what charlie cook wrote. i have no idea what he said, but i can guarantee you (a) he didn't say dems lost the senate because mcauliffe couldn't attack, and (b) he is as fair and non-POV as they come, unlike perlstein, who not only has POV but admits it. you source anything from charlie cook and you will have made progress for improvidng this and any other article.

Re NYT book review -- newspapers carefully sanction things like their opinions, and those opinions are labeled as the opinions of the NYT after proper editorial review. Those opinions are written by NYT editors. Perlstein is not a NYT editor, and he's never been a reporter for any paper, much less the NYT. You just can't say the NYT sanctioned the review. It ran in the NYT, and dozens of other papers by the way, but it was clearly labeled perlstein's view, and i can't help it you don't know this distinction. Journalist1983 (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

J1983, I don't require your advice about what kind of articles I should edit, and you might as well spare us both any more condescending bluster about "teaching" me. You are certainly teaching me patience. But as for the rest, you too may have a lot to learn.

You said that I "quantified" something that Perlstein did not. I understand "quantify" as the act of specifying a number, a measurement or a proportion. Can you be a little more explicit about how you think I am quantifying anything that the source does not quantify? That is to say: What quantity, measurement or proportion do I introduce which is not present in the source?

I don't mind you replacing the text that I wrote, "Republicans ended up winning a majority in the U.S. Senate," with a direct quote from the source, "Some hoped that President Bush’s ties to Enron would make 2002 a Democratic year. Instead, Democrats lost the Senate." I don't see a significant difference. As you write, "there were other factors at play." Perlstein's argument doesn't preclude other factors. Nor does the existence of other factors preclude this one.

I don't think many people would confuse the notion of a newspaper editorial -- which is prepared by the editorial board of a newspaper, and bears its stamp of authority -- with the notion of a book review, which is not commonly assumed to carry the same representative stamp of the publisher. A reviewer may become identified with a paper, but the converse is rare. Since I would not assume that a book review running in a paper is conducted by the editorial board, the phrases "New York Times book review" and "book review in the New York Times" mean nearly the same thing to me. But I don't mind keeping the latter phrasing for those readers who, as you charitably put it, "don't know this distinction." -- Shunpiker (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You blamed the loss of the elections 100% on mcauliffe. You said mcauliffe was weakened; so dems lost the senate. gimme a break. Even POV perlstein -- who obviously is POV; read the review which offers not a positive comment anywhere and who is a bomb-thrower by profession [1] -- doesn't begin to make such an outrageous claim. in fact, he says what he says -- they (meaning all democrats) hoped enron would be a sea change issue. turns out it wasn't. he doesn't say democrats didn't win the senate because of mcauliffe's investment in global crossing. You're trying to oversimply something over and over and over, and it looks as if you are doing a hatchet job -- just like perlstein, by the way, but at least he shaded and twisted the truth instead of running over it. Just be intellectually fair is all i ask. Journalist1983 (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

J1983, I disagree that I "blamed the loss of the elections 100% on McAuliffe," but if you think that I did, it helps me to understand the tone you have been taking. That said, I have welcomed your additions to the article in so far as they ensure that all notable points of view are represented and that the article asserts nothing beyond what is asserted in the sources. I've been working with you to address your concerns, and I'm willing to continue to do so. You have no grounds to accuse me of bad faith.

It sounds like our differences of opinion on this issue are wide enough that we're never likely to see things exactly the same. But it is possible that both of our points of view can be represented fairly. I will continue to work towards that end. -- Shunpiker (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to say what you didn't mean -- wonder what you did mean. Even if you said it was 1% mcauliffe's fault, that's not reality and that's not what perlstein cleverly said, again, not that he's an expert. face it, your edits have fallen short, and you have not been particularly constructive in this article. that's not my tone speaking, it's a factual observation. by the way, i don't assume bad faith. i know you have good faith, and i also know you don't know what you're talking about and that you don't have expertise in this area, and you shouldn't be so aggressive in an area you know so little about. this is a living person, and your casual writing, however well-intentioned, has continually violated wikipedia's policies on living persons.Journalist1983 (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Cherry Picking

Lets all step back and disengage. Now, are there any sourced negative facts available? Geoff Plourde (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Geoff, Do you mean are there any critical points of view which are not yet incorporated in the article, or would you like to challenge the sourcing of critical material which is currently part of the article? -- Shunpiker (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Let's start with the senate elections in 2002. Go look at, say, Minnesota, and ask if Enron was the issue or if, oh, a plane crash killing the incumbent might have had more to do with it. I defy you to find a source, no matter how crazy or POV, that MN or the other races that went Republican were because of McAuliffe's ties to Global Crossing, as is alleged in the wikipedia article. Piker, you're attacking and you're trying to draw two unrelated occurrences together just because they happen to appear, unrelated by the way, even in a POV article. There is no doubt that Republicans briefly squelched mcauliffe's ability to attack on enron. there is also no doubt that that had next to nothing to do with the outcome of the senate elections in 2002. so why do you persist? there is no doubt that at the end of the day this was politics and that mcauliffe had done nothing wrong, and you're giving undue weight to a matter that was proven to be a baseless political attack. piker, tell me how there is a connection between dems losing the senate in 2002 and mcualiffe's not being able to attack on enron. mcauliffe was hardly the only democrat alive in 2002 who could speak. Journalist1983 (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I am starting from square one. The big objection is that this article is slanted positively. The way to make it balanced is to insert sourced criticism. I am therefore asking if any is available. Geoff Plourde (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What criticism do you want? He has been criticized extensively, and we can say that. But none of it has ever led to any finding of wrongdoing. And we need to say that. He hasn't even been investigated for wrongdoing. That's right, he hasn't even been investigated for wrongdoing. Has some of the criticism muted him, slightly, because of politics? Yes. And we can say that. But we need to make clear these are political issues, not wrongdoing ones. If you think the article has a positive POV, fine. Then tone that down and give the straight facts. Problem is some don't want the facts because they want to be salacious and they think they need negative content, well, just because I guess. In this case, it appears as if somebody has been very successful, but we can't live with that fact, and we feel a need to tear him down somehow.Journalist1983 (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Not only does the sourced criticism balance the article, but if the issue was well-covered by several sources, then it is definitely noteworthy enough to deserve mention. And make no mistake, as long as the article material reflects what is in the sources, then we have the facts. GoldDragon (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This article contains two components: objective information and subjective content (which is negative). If we spent as much space on a positive subjective issue as we do on the negative subjective issue of Global Crossing, then we would at least be approaching balance. You keep referring to "the issue." What's the issue? Can you articulate it? We know Global Crossing was an issue, and I have no problem saying that. But what else do you want to conclude? That because Terry McAuliffe coudn't attack that that cost the Dems the Senate? You and others have made leaps that even perlstein carefully avoided. Even if you accept Perlstein, not that he's any authority (he is not), he used the words "some hoped" to make clear some didn't hope or believe that. And by the way, the "some hoped" comment was not related to McAuliffe; it was related to Democrats in general. In this instance, it wasn't even McAuliffe's job to worry about the Senate elections in 2002. That job befell to the head of the DSCC, not the DNC. Quit unfairly attacking.Journalist1983 (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Lest you doubt how much some of you have been co-opted in launching unfounded attacks, I included quotes from McAuliffe's main adversary at the time of the alleged controversy, RNC Chair Racicot, who had the judgment to say that while he disagreed with mcauliffe on many things, global crossing was a cheap shot. He said there was "no proof whatsoever to suggest anything inappropriate." This whole section doesn't belong in Wikipedia, esp. since editors have refused to put it in Bush's.Journalist1983 (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

Journalist1983, I do not want to engage you in an edit war. But if you insist on bypassing consensus to delete content, I will restore that content if it is in my ability to do so. This article does not belong to you, and you don't have a veto on what it contains. A comment like "already established you don't understand dnc v. dccc, dga, dscc" is pompous and obnoxious and does nothing to bring us any closer to consensus.

I regret that there are not other people around to stop this article from becoming a tug-of-war between the two of us. I have tried a number of times to get other people involved in this article to that end. I have asked you repeatedly ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) to join me in third-party mediation. I renew this offer to join you in mediation, formal or informal. Let's go!

In the mean time, know this: When you delete content, the first revert belongs to you. If you continue to delete content, you will violate the 3-revert rule. Should this happen, I will not join you in violation of the 3RR rule, but will report the violation to the administrator's noticeboard. -- Shunpiker (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a dispute box on the section. Piker continually doesn't understand the role of the DNC chairman, and his continual attempt to unfairly impugn is most reprettable. As stated, this article contains (1) objective information and (2) subjective information which is negative. If you put in some material -- subjective -- which talks about some race he did a good job on, then that's approaching balance. But all you seek to do is tear down. In a bio this long, information about the mccall race is utterly ridiculous, given his resume. if this bio were ten times longer, it might rise to inclusion material. Right now the cumulative attacks are certainly in violation of WP:living persons.Journalist1983 (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand Journalist1983's position as: McAuliffe should get credit for his successes as chairman (e.g. fundraising and infrastructure) but not his failures (e.g. electoral losses). J1983 would like to ascribe those failures entirely to the Hill committees, the DGA, etc.

There's no misunderstanding here -- I just don't accept that premise. As I see it: The chairman of the Democratic Party bears some responsibility for the party's performance at the ballot box. I'm not alone in this understanding:

• The people who demanded "McAuliffe resign after the party lost House and Senate seats in the 2002 election" according to a Washington Post article[7] saw it that way. This is an article which J1983 describes as a "balanced assessment ... written by a veteran political reporter".
• Prior to the 2002 elections, a political talk show host in Georgia quoted a DNC director predicting wins in the Senate, the House and the Governors' mansions. The author clearly held McAuliffe responsible for the coming elections [8]:

Maria Cardona, DNC Communications Director, stated last week that the Democrats will take back a majority of the Governorships, win back the majority in the House of Representatives and maintain and extend their majority in the Senate. That is a heady goal. As all the chairmen of political parties before him have been measured, so will Terry McAuliffe. If he delivers, he is in and if he doesn’t, he is out. It is as simple at that.

• An estimated 10,000 people signed a petition demanding that McAuliffe step down after the 2002 losses. [9]
• A New York Times article from 2002 called "Stung by Losses Party Buzzes About Its Leader" (Todd S. Purdum, Nov. 12 [10]) cites a number of people who held McAuliffe responsible for the losses that year, including a fundraiser described as "incensed that Mr. McAuliffe did not do more to help H. Carl McCall's campaign for governor of New York." Incidentally, the article also discusses McAuliffe's connection to Global Crossing, "one of the companies that has emerged as a symbol of corporate wrongdoing."
• Byron York of the National Review described losing elections as McAuliffe's "main legacy". [11] Sure, it's a conservative publication, but whether or not a party chairman can be held accountable for electoral results is not a partisan issue.

On the other hand, the text in the article which argues that McAuliffe is not responsible for the outcome of the elections of 2002 and 2004 is entirely unsourced. And while I think it's worth pointing out that some people de-emphasize McAuliffe's part in those losses or even absolve him entirely -- it should be done in a way that can be supported with sources. Please find some sources which say that the DNC chair is blameless when the party loses elections. Until then, it's an original thesis with no more authority behind it than some pseudonymous wikipedia editor who claims to be an expert, i.e. no authority at all. -- Shunpiker (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments: Terry McAuliffe and Global Crossing

I'm opening an RFC in the hope that more editors join in. I think this article has suffered from having too few editors for too long. The best way of resolving the content dispute may be to expand the "ownership" of the article to editors who are not already invested in the dispute. --Shunpiker (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

My position, simply, for living persons, we err on the side of caution. Any fair bio of someone such as Terry McAuliffe would spend 90-95 percent of the article on the stuff he accomplished and would make fair references to things he was accused of by opponents (no one from law enforcement ever investigated him) but never actually did wrong. Moreover, you're not giving George HW Bush the same treatment, which shows how biased you are since he did essentially the same thing mcauliffe did only more so (Bush worked for the company, McAuliffe never did). To make a whole "controversy" section out of something that had no merit to begin with shows we're not being fair. I would be willing to write two sentences on the matter, since that is all it deserves on a bio this long. If you want to keep the existing section, then you should (1) do the same for a Republican such as Bush, (2) expand the non-controversy section ten-fold so it doesn't appear as if this "controversy" defines him. It doesn't. Right now this "controversy" takes up nearly half the article, which is way out of whack. Such treatment might be appropriate if he actually did something wrong. But by all accounts, he did nothing wrong. One of his many angel investments hit paydirt, and that's just not against the law, it's not unethical, it's not immoral, and even the repubs have figured this dog won't hunt. There is zero evidence -- zero -- that he did anything improper, and all your writings haven't come up with anyone even accusing him of doing anything wrong. After all that has been written, you attach meaning to rants of biased scribes and political opponents that this somehow tinged him. In fact, he may have been slightly restrained in 2004 over this -- but it didn't cost any meaningful political ground (show me R. Perlsteins's or anyone else's assessment after the election this actually was a reason dems lost seats; gimme a break). If you're going to rest that this had a slightly restraining effect, which is where you are, then we're going to make that kind of editorial judgment about everything that happened to him -- one day his "stock" was up, one day it went down. The article would be 100 times longer, since that was a blip in his "effectiveness meter." Spending so much space about a nothing is not the balance Wikipedia seeks to achieve. Journalist1983 (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to see something "fair," then read this 2004 balanced assessment of him, written by a veteran political reporter who is far more balanced than the sources you cite (the sources you cite aren't even reporters -- they are political pundits who twist things on a given day in order to package they have thought of something new and brilliant). This is kind of bio that makes for fair reading: [12]. It includes his ups and his downs. The problem has been you don't want to recognize the positive things, just the trashy ones that never had merit. Journalist1983 (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with incorporating information from the Washington Post article that you link to. That said, it wouldn't be fair to cherry-pick only articles and authors who praise McAuliffe. That's not cautious: It's biased. One person's "veteran political reporter" is another's "pundit who twists things". A couple of points about the WaPo article in particular:

• It points out that McAuliffe was criticized for the electoral losses in 2002 ("demands that McAuliffe resign after the party lost House and Senate seats in the 2002 election"). I have no objection to including balancing sources which question whether this criticism was fair, but can we quit arguing whether this is a notable criticism?
• It describes a fundraising controversy involving the Teamsters which is not yet mentioned in the Wikipedia article: "Just six years ago, he struggled to survive federal investigations of illicit Teamsters campaign contributions to the party."
• It was written before the losses of November 2004, and has a valedictorian tone that strikes me as a little anachronistic. (There aren't many articles that came out after November 2, 2004 which praised the Kerry campaign.)

If you feel that my contributions to this article are biased (and you clearly do) I am happy to work with you to address the points of contention. But for the last time, I'm not going to make special edits to other articles in order to "prove" to you that I am fair.

I agree that the article could benefit from being expanded. It's far from comprehensive, and there is a lot more information out there, both flattering and critical. Ideally, the praiseworthy and blameworthy elements would be knit together into the chronology of his career as a whole, rather than addressed in separate sections. But I don't think that's likely to happen until editors working on this article reach something closer to consensus.

-- Shunpiker (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's very clear that you have no expertise in this area. There is a clear delineation between a reporter and a commentator (aka pundit). Edsall is a reporter, and everyone who knows anything knows this. Perstein is a commentator, with a self-admitted POV. This is not a balanced article. Journalist1983 (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

For sure, however, we are not going to rely solely on Edsall's report. We should also make use of sources from the New York Times and National Review. GoldDragon (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

National Review is by definition a political tool/opinion magazine. Neither of you seem to have any expertise; most regrettable. All you are doing is trying to do a hatchet job on the guy.Journalist1983 (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

In general, it is problematic to rely upon a single source, as that could potentially be unbalanced and biased. Multiple sources allow alternate views to be included. And what is wrong with the New York Times? GoldDragon (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no source, not even perstein, who says dems lost the senate in 2002 because mcauliffe couldn't attack. As already stated in this discussion, outcome of individual Senate seats were influenced by other factors, oh, let's see, like an incumbent getting killed in a plane crash; there were other issues in other races (go read the history of the GA race). Concluding that mcauliffe's inability to attack on enron cost the dems the senate is ridiculous and you should go read the arguments already herein before making edits.Journalist1983 (talk) 11:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I made an attempt to step in as a third party and resolve some of the POV issues in the Controversy section. In addition to the subjective statements, the section felt much too long. I've removed some of the back-and-forth quotes, simplified the narrative, and reduced that section to the facts of the case, and minimal sourced statements about its impact. The paragraph about Global Crossing's affect on the 2002 political climate should, IMO, remain. It's balanced, and relevant to McAuliffe's role as DNC Chairman. I also removed the Wiki self-reference, and the defensive paragraph on Bush. Why was that relevant? Included quotes already provide balance. --Tbenzinger (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant because we're not being fair. This is a non-issue pushed by those seeking political points. REpubs shut off the issue once they realizeed bush's father was vulnerable to the same (or worse) criticism. if you're going to leave the global crossing issue on mcauliffe's page then we should do the same on bush's or note that we aren't being even-handed. Bush's role, by the way, was more sinister than mcauliffe's, not that there was anything wrong with either one. There wasn't. Journalist1983 (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. But we do need to remove the Wiki self-reference. I just did that, while leaving a myriad of other sources that make the same point. Tbenzinger (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

with all due respect, you have no right to remove the tag just because you feel like it. There is an ongoing discussion, and the tag needs to stay on.

Second, you can remove the self reference if you fix the fairness problem. Treat McAuliffe and Bush the same. Either (1) give bush a section on his article; or (2) remove mcauliffe's; or (3) let's keep in the self-reference to ensure everyone reading the slam understands there appears to be a blatant unfairness. Again, WP policy on living persons is to err on the side of caution, not on the side of smear. Journalist1983 (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

So, I just want to be clear - you're arguing that the article wasn't fair just because I removed the Wikipedia self-reference? I still left the entire paragraph about Bush intact. The fairness or unfairness of this page should stand on its own, and not rely on something that might be on another page - if you're having an edit debate on GHWB's page, keep it there. Frankly, I'd have no problem removing the section entirely. It's a minor sidenote, IMO. In fact, when I altered the subhead, I thought I was toning the section down. Why did you put Global Crossing back as the subhead if you think the entire section is unfair to McAuliffe? I'm going to at least change that subhead back, and do a bit more research to fill out the more important parts of this page - namely, his role with the DNC.Tbenzinger (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the latter two paragraphs of the Global Crossing section. Now it's simply a statement of fact about the investment being an issue, followed by a very fair account that makes it clear McAuliffe did nothing wrong. Does that work? Like I said above, a dispute regarding GWHB doesn't really have much to do with this page. This page should stand on its own, fairly, and with attributable facts. I think it does now. Tbenzinger (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tbenziger, I appreciate your efforts to help to settle the NPOV dispute on this article. While I sustain the relevance of Perlstein's argument that McAuliffe's history with Global Crossing impaired his position to lead the Democratic party in 2002, I'm willing to let that go in the name of compromise. -- Shunpiker (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

2009 virginia gubernatorial bid

I'm at work and don't have time to source this properly but MSNBC says McAuliffe has filed paperwork to begin a run for governor. Again, I'm sorry I don't have the time to do this myself right now. Plus, I'm no good at formatting and what have you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.67.132 (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tags

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

• I placed the tag and would like to keep it there. the article is in poor shape and is not balanced. for example, a whole section on global crossing exists on the mcauliffe article. mcauliffe sold his shares many years before alleged wrongdoing by global crossing (not by him), and it's purely an attack to try and tie the two events together. Some Wikipedia editors are buying into the unfair attacks. Moreover, why isn't there a "Global Crossing" and a controversies section in the article about George HW Bush? He did the same thing as McAuliffe (meaning he didn't do anything wrong either). Read the NY Times article in that section. These were passing partisan events, but Wikipedia should not be used to perpetuate or rearm failed political attacks. Journalist1983 (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Many people have removed POV material, and I took out what I thought was the last traces of POV. Hence I removed the tag. Racepacket (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Entrepreneuring

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

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

The page currently says that the man owned a driveway paving business at the age of 4. Fix that date. Was that in the 70's rather than the 60's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.25.31.194 (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Article POV

Examples of matter-of-fact statements in the article: "McAuliffe has made conflicting statements regarding his relationship with Huang, some of which he later recanted.", "McAuliffe's denial of any coordination contrary struck some as insincere.", POV in the lead: "His history of mixing politics with business deals..." Add to that lots of unsourced statements and synthesis and you have a POV article. Hekerui (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The POV pushing was done by a single purpose account, I reverted the edits as they amounted to making this an attack page. They were all copy pasted from the SourceWatch article anyway. Hekerui (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of taking single examples, please deal with a case by case issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BellForner (talk • contribs) 14:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's an obvious POV push copied from external website. Hekerui (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I put this on the BLP notice board here.Hekerui (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Some looks like, but not all, and it should be dealt with on an individual case, instead of reverting to a week ago. BellForner (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that some of the "business" information is relevant and appropriate, but the large-scale addition of a "Controversies" section a week before a primary election is obviously intended as an attack and does not belong on Wikipedia.Whatrocks11 (talk) 2:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Surf's up, kids. A diarist on DailyKos just posted that POV pushers are whitewashing the article. This should be fun (yikes).--Happysomeone (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum, please discuss the article, not some website. Hekerui (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Introduction POV

I will remove the Washington Post quotations from the lead, quotations from the opinions of a single newspaper writer don't have a place in a lead. Hekerui (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversies POV

Okay, I've gone through the Controversies section piece by piece, and I think the Global Crossing and Turkey items are sourced and balanced. The others are all clearly lifted from other sites (Prudential lease deal and John Huang), or have significant POV issues. Many of them are also tangentially tied to McAuliffe. I'm going to trim down this Controversies section; this stuff shouldn't dominate a BLP page.Tbenzinger (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The POV issues were restored a while ago. This article is still full of BLP problems. Hekerui (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC) If there are specific issues, please edit those. Refrain from the mass deletions and reverts to months ago. You have failed to point out any problems.