Jump to content

Talk:Terry McAuliffe/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Global Crossing, one more time

I have restored some of the text that was deleted by an IP editor with the summary that it has "zero value" and is "not encyclopedic". It was, naturally, the long-embattled section about Global Crossing. If that editor or someone else would like to substantiate those arguments, this is the place to do it.

The text that was deleted was the product of compromise. It was far from perfect, but it represented months of back and forth. Wiping it out entirely shows no consideration for any of the editors' efforts at consensus, however flawed.

Whether you believe that McAuliffe's dealings with Global Crossing are noteworthy in and of themselves, or whether you believe that the matter was all drummed up by McAuliffe's political enemies -- McAuliffe's handling of the scrutiny he received for his dealings with Global Crossing represent a noteworthy chapter in his career. Omitting any mention of this matter would not be fair. -- Shunpiker (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

First, you conveniently removed content that "represented months of back and forth." Second, what part of this section represents "McAuliffe's handling of the scrutiny?" It seems like it's more about how other people handled accusations of possible wrongdoing. However, after investigations by both his political enemies and friends alike, they concluded he was in now way involved in wrongdoing and the article should correctly reflect that. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
71.178.193.134 -- With one minor exception, I second your latest round of edits and think that they improve the article. Editing controversial material inevitably entails removing or replacing some of what went before. I don't object to that kind of change: It's incremental and constructive. It's the kind of "back and forth" which will eventually produce something that the Wikipedia community can stand behind.
Racepacket made some good edits which clarify the context of the criticism that McAuliffe received and show how he responded to those criticisms. McAuliffe's handling of this issue was previously buried in the references: The footnotes to "What a Party" are for the section in his memoir where he gives his side of the story.
Racepacket's edits also tie in George H.W. Bush's investments in Global Crossing without veering off topic. Hopefully this goes some way to address one of Journalist1983's longstanding objections.
My only quibble with the section as it now stands is that "High profile investments" is needlessly vague. Is there some other investment that McAuliffe made which drew as much attention as his investment in Global Crossing? --Shunpiker (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I presume the author of the Global Crossing section works for McAuliffe. The language, especially regarding controversial issues such as Global Crossing, seems intended to exonerate him rather than to describe the allegations and whether or not there is anything to them. I deleted some apologetic fluff that did not change the factual meaning of the article. Rstinejr (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

One especially irritating thing about this section is that the source for statements exonerating McAuliffe is mostly McAuliffe himself. I am not making a judgement about his claims, but presenting statements as facts because McAuliffe made them in his book seems pretty dubious. Rstinejr (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Green cars

Politifact did some investigating into McAuliffe's role at the green car company. What is Telergy? Candleabracadabra (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tag redux: concerns about bias throughout article

I've put Template:NPOV at the top of this article. It reads like a right-wing hatchet job -- unsurprising given the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial election -- and needs massive attention from editors able to make sure that sources follow WP:UNDUE and that the article sticks close to the wording of sources. Multiple instances of improper and biased use of sources are present, a particularly nasty one under Terry_McAuliffe#Issues, where in discussing McAuliffe's memoir it says: "In the book, McAuliffe wrote about abandoning his wife in a hospital delivery room while she was preparing to give birth....". The source, however, makes it clear that his wife told him to go! ("'Go!' she said...'I’ll call you if I need you.'") Just one of lots of examples.

Another: Here, the article says that during the race for DNC chairman McAuliffe "was forced to apologize after he referred to blacks as 'colored people'." But he wasn't forced to apologize, and didn't have to, which is obvious from the source. McAuliffe was talking about GOP efforts to depress minority turnout via voter intimidation, the source says, and he caused a buzz among some people in the crowd by misspeaking: he meant to say "people of color", according to his spokeswoman, and flipped the words. Context matters; he did this while talking about foiling race-targeted vote suppression -- of course that's not the kind of thing one apologizes for (unlike, say, "Macaca", or actual voter intimidation)! Once again, the wording strays from the source in a biased direction. Such bias is unacceptable in any politics-related article, let alone a BLP. I'd add a BLP tag too, but that would clutter the top even though it's a genuine problem. Yes, I know I can fix these edits, and will later, but I want to draw attention to the forest right now, not the trees. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the two examples you've pointed out. I wrote/rewrote a lot of it and in an effort to keep things concise and observe WP:WEIGHT, looking back it seems I didn't include enough context and you're right that some things are slanted. We can continue to work on it. Instaurare (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Instaurare only fixed the examples he was called out on. There is a reason his edits are being questioned by multiple users. He couldn't even keep the titles of the sections neutral. Global Crossing for example was a business dealing and part of his career. The section should be about the aspects of his time there as its inclusion is supposed to describe his business career. Instead, the title was changed to "Global Crossing Investigation." Same goes with GreenTech - if it is part of his business career, then it doesn't need to be titled only "GreenTech Controversies." This is really basic stuff that the user chose to go into and edit. It adds no quality to the article, and further highlights his non-neutral agenda that has been targeting this page for weeks despite objections from multiple users. And these are just the titles I am talking about. The content of nearly all the sections has been severely compromised and without writing a dissertation here, the non-neutral edits to titling (and in the past, the lead) alone show that the user is not capable of improving this article - but rather just the opposite. What steps can be taken outside of an edit war to restore the page neutrality going forward? I think the NPOV is a good start, but other than alert readers to the issue, it isn't solving the problem here. I understand the user keeps saying let's work together to make it better, but that just isn't happening here. It's continuing to get worse. And he can continue to be upset that people are issuing "integrity attacks" against him, but clearly they aren't baseless and nobody would want to take the time to come in here and continuously clean up a mess he has created if there weren't one to begin with. LitmusCycle (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
First, please stop making lazy reverts - it is clear that you are only interested in reverting all my edits when you undo grammar fixes, code fixes, and other uncontentious material. Second, I am happy to include content about the aspects of his time with Global Crossing and GreenTech - problem is, all notable sources on the matters cover the various issues described in the article. If you can find more verifiable, reliable, third party, noteworthy sources, please include them. I just can't find any. Instaurare (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't a wholesale revert, you'll notice many things weren't changed. I'm "collaborating to make the page better" - as you suggested. The addendums to the titles are suggestive. I made them NPOV so you wouldn't get blocked. LitmusCycle (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the recent edit war:

  • The edit removed descriptive headers. There is nothing POV about titling a section "Global Crossing investigation" when it deals entirely with an investigation over Global Crossing.
  • ZeniMax Media, Taejon Expo, and Visiting Fellow bits do not warrant their own subsections and should be relocated.
  • The edit removed or diluted several reliably sourced pieces of important information. The content can be reworked and reworded, certainly, but removal is not acceptable.
  • The "early insight" quote is WP:PUFFERY.
  • Amazon is not a reliable source. Book endorsements are not "positive reviews", and even if they were, they don't belong - the coverage pertains to the personal details.

Instaurare (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Controversies is Inherently POV - Reassess

I second the motion to reformat those sections without the controversy tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifeEditorLatinAmerica (talk • contribs) 14:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw the controversy section a few months back and see it has been removed. I agree that reformatting is the way to go instead of a dedicated section. With that said, the sourcing of original articles often referenced in later publishing seems to be missing. Those should be added in addition as they are the original reports. - sithlordmadigan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sithlordmadigan (talk • contribs) 14:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013

Input is sought in an RfC at Talk:Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013. Instaurare (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Instaurare non-neutral edits

User:Instaurare is making a lot of non-neutral edits to the article. Those edits should be reverted. Here is an example of such edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terry_McAuliffe&diff=554967656&oldid=554838369 Illegal Operation (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please explain point by point here instead of reverting everything. Instaurare (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Come on man. This is getting out of hand. You say one thing and do another - move material then move it back. You said a couple times, "can we collaborate", but it's obvious you are only doing what you want to do, regurgitating news headlines in an attempt to attack the page. Most of them don't belong on Wikipedia, let alone on this page. News agencies make money off of opinionated, controversial material. They are a business and need to sell memberships. The whole point of Wikipedia is to be neutral and present factual information the way an encyclopedia does. None of the stuff you are adding has any significance as most of it is circumstantial/speculative. You are using quotes as basis of fact - allowing unsubstantiated news headlines to drive your edits and the body content of this page. Sourcing something isn't as simple as finding a web property where the sentiment is shared. We as humans have to differentiate what's valuable and what's not. Based on your edits, you apparently think that every negative sentiment about Terry McAuliffe is "true", "valuable", "researched", "justified", "neutral", and "worthy of inclusion". Your approach is severely biased and demonstrates no effort to use Wikipedia the way it's intended to be. Wikipedia does not exist to farm opinionated quotes. Aside from all that, even if quotes were "worthy of inclusion", why is it that you have not represented any quotes that praise Terry McAuliffe to balance out all of the quotes you added that so adamantly oppose him? Are you unable, or unwilling, to present both sides of any discussion? LitmusCycle (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

There are going to need to be some protections put on the page for the duration of the campaign. The second paragraph of the lead is totally unnecessary and does not read like an encyclopedia. That should and will be reverted. The previous lead was long-standing and sufficient.

Long-standing, yes, but sufficient, no. I will move some of the material to its own subsection, though. Instaurare (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you are confused as to the purpose of a lead. It's a lead - a simple overview. The "tireless moneyman" quote that has been added is a biased opinion and is not shared by the general public, nor the greater population. Where is the research? Am I missing something? Did someone poll the American public and did the majority write in their answers? A quote from Jeff Gerth published in 1999 is in no way shape or form accepted by the general public as fact or appropriate to define his legacy. Aside from that, it was moved as an act of good faith and then replaced? What's the deal? The quote should be deleted entirely as it is not presented with the same meaning or with the same tone that the original author presented it. LitmusCycle (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

American Pioneer Savings Bank. This addition carried a more neutral tone, but only cites one source throughout its entire duration. One source for an entire section in Wiki doesn't carry much merit. Perhaps there are more sources?

Added Business Week to back up NYT. Instaurare (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Two news agencies, same story, all speculative. LitmusCycle (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The GreenTech blowout is overkill, tangential and at it's core, not neutral. At the very least, this type of expanded information belongs on a GreenTech Auto Wikipedia page. This page is for Terry McAuliffe.

The company and McAuliffe's role in it have been the subject of a lot of scrutiny, so there has to be a lot of material. I will try to trim sources that don't directly relate to McAuliffe or the campaign, though I don't think there are many, if any. Instaurare (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Nearly everything added is speculative. Have you researched the EB-5 program? Is there research we can cite regarding the success of the program? Even if so, why isn't the success of the EB-5 program discussed on an EB-5 page instead of Terry's page? What significance does EB-5 have in Terry McAuliffe's life? One person says Terry McAuliffe and GTA are fraud because they speculate about the EB-5 program and it gets published on this Wikipedia page? I think this section needs to be edited and only include the facts about Terry McAuliffe and his role with GTA. "Subject of a lot of scrutiny" as grounds for including "a lot of material" makes no sense. The story itself is pretty concise and most of it is speculative at best. It's not an "issue" in the sense that there was any wrongdoing. The bulk of media attention lasted a couple weeks and has since all but disappeared - likely because even the news agencies are bored with the story and realize that they got what they wanted from it (readership) and have moved on to other topics. Only User:Instaurare seems to think that a speculative article about the intentions of GTA and the EB-5 program are worth including in Wikipedia. Overhyped media attention is not grounds for Wikipedia inclusion. My notes on what should be included are further down in this talk section. LitmusCycle (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

“Quietly resigned” carries a negative connotation. “Resigned” would suffice on its own; especially since the edit continues on to say that the resignation was not announced until later. A quiet announcement? This edit is redundant and seemingly goes out of the way to add smear to what could have been a simple, useful edit. People at the company knew he resigned. He was removed from the website. Seemed pretty obvious. Maybe the Wiki user can enlighten us all as to what constitutes a "quiet resignation"?

Check the source. Instaurare (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Missing the point. Regurgitating an opinion is not justifiable simply because it appeared in the WP. If they wanted to, the WP could refer to anyone as "quietly resigning" simply because they didn't know about it as soon as it happened. They say it was a quiet resignation because the news wasn't spread like wild fire. Does that mean it was in fact quiet? Resignations are generally quiet by nature, no? Therefore they are just normal resignations, not quiet resignations. Saying he quietly resigned doesn't reflect the truth (or common sense). Adding "quietly" is clearly an attempt to imply suspicious behavior. It's simply not the case and including it is misleading. He left the company, it wasn't a secret, an announcement later followed and it's evident now that his resignation has been anything but quiet. Not sure how "quiet" holds any merit at all. If it does, maybe we should write three paragraphs about Terry's driveway business and how he quietly resigned from that after realizing that there were other opportunities he wanted to pursue. Come on man, this is nonsense. LitmusCycle (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

“McAuliffe's role in GreenTech, which he has touted as proof that he has executive experience to be Virginia's governor, has been heavily scrutinized by the media and lambasted by Ken Cuccinelli's campaign, and has become a major issue in the 2013 race.” – Nothing neutral included in this language. Where's the info about the praise he also received in the media for his effort with GreenTech? And who says it is a major issue? That’s an opinion, not something that is in an encyclopedia. User easily could've described his role being the "subject" of media attention and Ken Cuccinelli's campaign with the "major issue" section deleted but purposefully added negative language to persuade public opinion. Regardless, the point made about his role with GreenTech as it relates to politics is subjective, not neutral by nature, intended to provoke controversy and should be reverted. The VEDP information also is a GreenTech story that belongs on a GreenTech page.

The media and the Cuccinelli campaign have made it an issue, and we need to cover it. No intended provocation or persuasion. The sources are reporting on it by nature of the fact that it's McAuliffe's company; they don't seem interested in the company by itself. Instaurare (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The media made it an issue therefore we need to cover it? Negative. Media members get paid to sell stories. By nature it intends to hype situations and spark controversy. We cannot do the same. What we need to cover are the facts about the person's life, not embellished, not overly dramatic. We cannot allow the media to control the conversation. For instance, the opinion of an individual is not notable nor is it neutral re: "an investment advisor suggests fraud". There are people who suggest EB-5 is a failure, there are also people who support the EB-5 program and find it helpful. This advisor's opinion is one-sided. Additionally, the public was elated about the GTA launch and everything the company is setting out to do. Do we include all quotes from several months ago that praise the company and all of the quotes from people who are rooting for them to succeed? Or is it better to wait and see how these things actually shake out? You are focusing on one very tiny element of GTA and McAuliffe and not representing the overall picture. LitmusCycle (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
In my mind the main points that will stick out over time go something like this, Terry invested in GTA and helped move the Chinese car company to the US with intent to create US jobs - producing very niche, electric vehicles called MyCar. As former Chairman, McAuliffe set up the company headquarters in VA and helped broker a deal to have a new manufacturing plant built in Mississippi. McAuliffe resigned as GTA chairman late 2012, around the same time he announced his candidacy for governor. His departure from GTA fueled some debate regarding his experience as a businessman. As part of his run for Governor, in the spring of 2013, various media outlets, as well as the Ken Cuccinelli campaign, questioned McAuliffe's involvement with GTA - including his motive for placing the manufacturing plant in Mississippi, the effectiveness of the EB-5 program to jumpstart the business, the timetable for building the plant and producing cars, and the timing of his resignation. No longer a representative of the company, McAuliffe deferred questions to a GTA spokesperson. In April 2013, under the leadership of President and CEO, Charles Wang, GTA publicized plans to begin manufacturing of the 5-passenger electric sedan in late 2013. LitmusCycle (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The facts are presented and opinions are not altered as a result of one sided quotes being presented. Until any aspect of GTA is proven fraud, that language should be left off the page. The only facts are that Terry McAuliffe is no longer chairman of GTA, and, although some questions have been raised, GTA still has plans to produce electric vehicles. Everything else should stay out. LitmusCycle (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The Watchdog section is post-McAuliffe. He is not with the company and wasn’t when this lawsuit was filed. This is yet another clear vandalism/attempt at slander on this page. Again, this would belong on a GreenTech or Watchdog page, not a Terry McAuliffe page.

If the sources connect him to it, it passes. I'll take a second look. Instaurare (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
A lawsuit between GTA and Watchdog belongs on a GTA or a Watchdog page. Simple. LitmusCycle (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The memoir section provides only media reporting on negative issues. If each of these anecdotes from his book are eligible for the page, then so is every chapter of his book. Why was nothing else about the book referenced? Aside from that, these and other anecdotes would belong on a page about his book, not him. The language used in this section is unmistakably NOT neutral and fails to adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines, as do most of the edits.

Because nothing else about the book is notable, and the media has framed it in those terms. Instaurare (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
A very concise response from you that is indicative of bias. I am baffled that you can create a section for a book but not have the ability to find anything useful from it, only items the media covered. Did you read the book? Are you qualified to present a section on the book? To reiterate my previous point, the media cannot be the only source for all of your edits. At some point, you might actually have to think for yourself and decide what information is important, what information is purposely designed to fuel fire, and therefore, what information is biased and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. What if someone suggests your entry is not notable, deletes it, in favor of a quote from someone else regarding Terry's book? Then what? All you did was quote a passage from the book because the media quoted it. What happens when they forget about it? (It seems as though they already did.) How is it that you added a section about the book, but have not done your due dilligence as to the characters in the book, the synopsis, the impact, the sales, the publisher, information about the author, etc. This whole section added by you is just an excuse to slander Terry McAuliffe. It's useless. LitmusCycle (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

A wholesale revert was done by another user because these edits are so one-sided. The user who made them has lost credibility to have the edits stand. They are violating Wikipedia standards and guidelines. LitmusCycle (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

How about we collaborate instead of trying to get rid of editors? Instaurare (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Collaboration is for team players. You are not indicating that you are on a team, but rather, acting selfishly. LitmusCycle (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Instaurare is topic banned in LGBT and abortion related articles. I think that this should be expanded. Illegal Operation (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

An article talk page is not the venue for proposing or discussing a topic ban. And, frankly, since nothing here (yet) has reached the level of open edit warring or out-of-bounds personal behavior, there is really no grounds for such a debate. Can we stick to the specifics of the content differences for now? Rklear (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Instaurare should be put under extra scrutiny. He has been editing articles about Ken Cuccinelli, E. W. Jackson, Mark Obenshain , Bob McDonnell, and many other Virginia Republicans. Illegal Operation (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Disregarding the fact that editing articles of Virginia Republicans in no way precludes me from editing other articles - can we work together to improve the article? Instaurare (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
When you demonstrate that you can edit pages in a neutral fashion, then maybe people will be willing to work with you. Would be more helpful to revert all of your edits and start over, rather than try to undo the mess you've created. Adding biased information with the expectation that other users can come in and work with you to edit it is the wrong approach. Nonetheless, it looks as though you aren't stopping, so we're forced to edit your work to preserve the integrity of the page. LitmusCycle (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
A remarkably biased edit and a wildly overused source

Wow, check out this edit. Journalist Jeff Gerth, well-known as being critical of Bill Clinton, opens an article with this:

"On a sweltering June evening this year President Clinton headlined yet another Democratic Party fund-raiser, but this time the guest of honor was Terry McAuliffe, Mr. Clinton's closest and most loyal Washington friend as well as his tireless money man."

... and User:Instaurare uses this source as the basis for adding this generalization:

His fundraising has created an image of a "tireless money man".

Let's break this down: a journalist known to be hostile to Clinton uses a loaded phrase, and Instaurare takes this single source as "creating an image"? In a BLP? In the lead section? This violates BLP, VER/OR and NPOV all at once! It's pejorative and shouldn't be in a BLP without qualification (and attribution); one source obviously doth not an image create; and on top of that, putting it in the lead is undue weight. That is quite an edit! And apparently -- from what other editors are saying above -- it's part of a pattern of POV-pushing. Some sort of remedy is needed, and if the editor is already under editing restriction in other topic areas, well...

Check this out: there are 63 sources in the article, cited a total of ca. 94 times, 23 of which were to the Gerth article! That's approximately one-fourth of the footnotes in this BLP!! That is just a mind-boggling level of bias and undue weight. Wonder how many of these footnotes were added by User:Instaurare? --Middle 8 (talk) 08:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

*sigh* I'm tired of saying this, but instead of integrity attacks can we work to improve the article? Instaurare (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
(belated) I am commenting on your edits, not you, so I'm not engaging in any personal attack. I am suggesting that there is a pattern of bias in your edits, and that doesn't appear to have changed. I still think an RfC/U or something like that may be in order. --Middle 8 (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

More Non-Neutral Edits

Edits from User:Instaurare are presently an issue. Quotes are being taken out of context and information is being selectively included/excluded in a negative manner which is disrupting the neutrality of the page. I attempted to fix this problem by adding context and providing a balanced view with opposing viewpoints [my attempts were reverted which can be seen in a few examples here], here, and here. The page has had a NPOV tag added by a different user since June. The page history and this talk page reflect a number of users taking issue with this pattern of edits and their violations of the guidelines.

1. Negative reviews of the memoir are included in the section. Yet when positive reviews from newspapers were added, the user removed them. If Sabato's negative review is relevant to the section, so are reviews of news agencies. Publicized parts of the book are also relevant since the section is in fact...about the book. These were also deleted. One of the anecdotes mentioned earned him the cover of a major magazine. The section is about the memoir- so pieces of the memoir that received attention are appropriate, just like the Buzzfeed content.

See WP:WEIGHT. Instaurare (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I know the policy. You don’t just need to tell me to see it for it to provide an explanation. The newspaper reviews are added because negative reviews are added. If we are painting a neutral picture both should be fair game to the section. The section is about the book. It should have that kind of information. The Sabato review is not a more "significant viewpoint" about the book than a major news publication. Without, the section provides one viewpoint, which is not what Wikipedia is for. BallotLine (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

2. The "caged rat" quote is out of context. There is no problem giving the entirety of the quote, it is not long.

Don't necessarily care, just trying to be concise. Instaurare (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
If you don’t care, then why are you editing it? That’s not being concise. Taking it out of context and painting a different picture should be something that all editors care about when it is disputing the NPOV. BallotLine (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

3. One piece of information (Marjorie Williams) was added to the memoir section just to add "personal controversies" to the title. This is a non-neutral action. That quote is unrelated to the memoir and not appropriate for the section. Simply editing the title of the section does not make it appropriate when the section is overwhelmingly about the memoir.

Where do you suggest it go, then? Instaurare (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
It doesn’t belong in the section. And it doesn’t really fit in any section. If we put every single thing a writer has ever said about the subject into the article, it would be the longest page on Wikipedia. BallotLine (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

4. The Jill Lawrence quote is an uses the word "might." It is not a factual comment and does not belong in an encyclopedia without an opposing viewpoint. See WP:UNDUE. It is a dated quote and recent (July) polling shows McAuliffe with leads of 7% and 16% among women. I decided to leave the quote and add the polling data for neutrality purposes but it was removed despite the fact it followed WP:Verifiability. In the neutrality section it states: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y, followed by an inline citation." That was the format used, yet it was removed. It was clearly not WP:SYNTH as the user stated.

You are misreading WP:UNDUE; from WP:SYNTH: "The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world." = "Jill Lawrence said McAuliffe 'might have a woman problem'...But recent polls show McAuliffe with leads among women voters." Instaurare (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
As the user below said, no conclusion was drawn from the Lawrence statement. Another viewpoint was added. If you want the polling data out, then the Lawrence statement goes as well. It’s a viewpoint from months ago, which was your explanation for removing the Freelander quote. These are hypocritical decisions. BallotLine (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

5. The Freelander quote is a fact-based quote and if information from May's Buzzfeed is to be used in this encyclopedia article, then a quote from that time saying the information did not make newspaper is in fact relevant. Assuming it is "likely outdated" or "will be" is not an acceptable explanation for its exclusion. The user added these memoir stories to the page, so the door should be open to additional information regarding the subject matter.

It is dishonest to include the statement, since it is nearly three months old. We are not in the business of trying to justify a dated comment with subsequent citations. Instaurare (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
See above. It’s not dishonest, if you are including the Lawrence quote. I am sure she “might” have a different opinion if asked again about the topic, considering it was months ago and there is new polling data. There is twisting and turning and bending of these policies to justify the destruction of a neutral point of view in this article. BallotLine (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

BallotLine (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


i have to agree here that the section in question this time around has serious point of view issues. the edits made by ballotline seem to be an attempt to make a more neutral view of the book and include more information about it. some of the stuff in there i.e. national journal quote probably don't belong at all like bl stated. but at the very least some further info on that topic could be included. also want to mention i agree the quote from the wife was too long and was appropriately shorted, and a good faith edit. that being said, the NPOV issues have been a theme throughout the article and i also attempted to repair a section. reading through the history over the past few months on this talk page seems to show a consensus that a majority of the edits occurring from instaurare don't have a NPOV and i would ask that the community be allowed to help fix them. Mandate41 (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
*Sigh* I'm sorry but WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYNTH, among others, prevail here. The newspaper endorsements have no lasting impact that is noteworthy, and the poll is clearly synthesis. If you genuinely want to help fix the article, please work to make improvements instead of complete reverts. Instaurare (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
i am sorry, but you are mis-using those policies. why do newspaper reviews not count as a significant viewpoint but a political scientist does? Fairness and neutrality is not being shown in this matter and it is quite clear. i would respectfully ask you to allow the community to continue its attempts to repair this page, and specifically this section. the quote from Jill Lawrence does not carry more weight to the topic than the polling data and no conclusion was drawn from the polling data. therefore it is not a SYNTH issue. it was listed as a statement of fact. if you want the word "but" out, take the word "but" out. the polling data is there because a random opinion of a journalist that was stated in the month of may was injected into the section. if the Freelander quote is old, the Lawrence quote is old as well. the polling data is the only new information and was added because the door was opened to the topic. Mandate41 (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
As much as I hate to do this, I hear a quack. Are you and BallotLine and/or another editor on this page the same person? Instaurare (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't see where I am misusing any policies. The newspaper reviews are not significant because they are back-of-the-book endorsements, and the section deals with the controversies created by the memoir. There is no political or personal impact on Terry McAuliffe from the newspaper reviews that is worth noting. Not all content is equal. I would also urge you to read WP:SYNTH. There is no source connecting the poll to Lawrence's article. Instaurare (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
So because two users agree, and agree with sentiments of most of the people on this talk page the past few months, they are the same person? Brilliant. It's also too bad your accusation did not meet any of the requirements on that essay. Take around and look at this talk page. There has been a huge consensus against the POV used in your edits. Back to the matter at hand. The newspaper reviews were reviews published prior to ever being put on the book. Just because they were put on the book, doesn't nullify them as reviews published by those newspapers. The section shouldn't deal entirely of controversies. And it is that outlook that is the source of the POV problems that are being created. If there is a section about his memoir, it should include all notable information about that memoir, not just controversies. In regards to Lawrence, it doesn't belong itself. You continue to ignore that fact that the same argument against it was used in your Freelander argument -which has now been pointed out by two users. I maintain the fact that no conclusion is drawn from Lawrence's quote by the polling data. But in light of your Freelander argument and the disagreement surrounding the polling data, I think a compromise can be reached by removing both. BallotLine (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I added my thoughts above. This has been a sustained issue on this page judging by all the talk sections (especially this one) and the way the article is written in general. BallotLine (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Caramadre investment

Why has content related to this investment by McAuliffe, covered extensively by the Washington Post, been removed entirely from Wikipedia's article? Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Read the section above. B-watchmework (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I have read the relevant section above, but it does not explain why reliably sourced content reported in the Washington Post about this shouldn't be included in the article. It seems clear that it should be restored to the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This article still reads like a hatchet job

In June, User:Middle 8 above complained that this article 'reads like a right-wing hatchet job'. Unfortunately, it still does. Section after section is filled with negative quotes and factoids which seem specifically chosen to portray McAuliffe in a bad light. Not surprisingly, the parts added in 2013 are particularly blatant. (To take just a couple of examples: why single out the judgement of the candidates by 'NVTC TechPAC' and give them their own paragraph? And why so much about his daughter's birth in the 'Personal life' section?)

Personally, I'm not particularly familiar with McAuliffe or Virginia politics, so I can't say how fair the overall article is, but even I can recognise that it's not written from a neutral point of view. This tends to happen to all biographies of politicians during election periods, but even so, we can do better. Robofish (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You liberals do hatchet jobs on every conservative on here, so don't talk.72.204.66.161 (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Read the sources, and feel free to make constructive (not simply destructive) edits. Instaurare (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I've removed all the stuff about McAuliffe's daughter. Massive WP:UNDUE in a WP:BLP. Such material simply isn't pertinent, and outside the context of the subject's memoir, it makes him sound like someone obsessed with politics at the expense of his family life. There is much material like this in the article, and it doesn't belong, and much of it was added by User:Instaurare, whose edits show a massive pattern of bias. Removal of such material is not "destructive". It shouldn't be there in the first place. ESPECIALLY in a BLP. Much more can be pruned. I still think User:Instaurare's edits should be the subject of wideer scrutiny, in an RfC/U or something similar. There has been no indication of any course change despite a great many complaints on this page.
UPDATE: More cleanup [1] [2] [3]. Cumulative diff (including some ref restorals by the very nice AnomieBOT): [4]. If I deleted any more refs and AnomieBOT missed them, apologies; I'm out of time for the weekend but will have a look in a couple days.
Yes, these are big deletions; but just look at this talk page and all the complaints about inappropriate, biased material. Just because it's sourced doesn't AT ALL mean it belongs in a BLP. Some could be in articles on gubernatorial campaign, but here, no way. WP:BOLD is the way to go when pruning BLP's. That part of policy overrides all other considerations. Editors wishing to restore any of this, please justify specifically, per WP:BURDEN. Regards, --Middle 8 (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I totally agree, the page was very biased; its sad to see pages abused like this (Paul LePage is another example). As for policy, Middle 8 pretty much sums it up. B-watchmework (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Folks, you're misinterpreting WP:BLP. To claim that this article is a right wing hatchet job is laughable at best - the article relies heavily on outlets like WaPo, NYT, etc. The way to address perceived tone issues is not to remove massive swaths of content, it is to fix the alleged tone issues while reflecting what the sources say. (If you have any RSes that speak glowingly of his background, I'd love to see them.) Please discuss your issues specifically and in detail - please do not remove longstanding material without discussion. Otherwise this article will have to be fully protected and no one wants that. Instaurare (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
No, BLP does NOT say that just because something is in print, it should be used. Not at all. As for full protection? Are you kidding? Last I checked, you were under editing restriction in related topic areas for tendentious editing. Virtually everyone on the talk page seems to feel there's only one editor making the problematic edits. Removal of large portions of text is a very good idea if no one else thinks they should have been here in the first place. But we'll follow usual WP:DR and see where this goes. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
How about we lay off the personal attacks and look at specific content (which is where you should have started)? Instaurare (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Re content, Instaurare, you've got it backwards. WP:BURDEN puts the burden on the editor who wishes to keep contentious material in a BLP, i.e., you in this case. You need to be explaining, topic by topic and statement by statement, why your edits belong in the article. Not the other way around. You're the one who should be filling in the table below (you and whoever else wants to keep the material; if there are others, I don't think we've heard from them). You plainly do not have consensus to keep the material in question; the only reason it sticks is that you have been far more tenacious than other editors. So, please justify in detail why the contentious material you have been trying to restore (and should immediately stop restoring per local editorial consensus and WP:BLP) belongs in the article. For a change in perspective, please have a look at WP:OPPONENT. BTW, please stop accusing editors of making personal attacks when they comment on your edits. You appear to be a tendentious editor, and saying this in the context of WP:DR is WP:SPADE, not a personal attack. Your edits continue to be problematic, and I do think that restricting your editing would be a likely and logical way to keep this BLP from getting worse, unless you change course and begin editing per WP:BLP, especially in light of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BURDEN. Nothing personal at all here, just the mechanics of working on this wiki. I do wish you happy editing. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreeing as well. The page history shows that soon after McAuliffe's gubernatorial bid was announced, this BLP began a slow but steady turn into an attack piece on the subject. This is largely the work of a single editor who, under his former account name, was found unable to edit neutrally by the community at WP:AN. Negative factoids and opinions have been repeatedly inserted, given undue weight and often sourced to blogs, partisan opinion pieces and organizations and even to articles that do not even mention McAuliffe. Silly-season talking points are presented as major controversies in the subject's career, quotes are cherry picked and highlighted to present the subject in unfavorable light and pertinent favorable content has been removed. It will take a lot of effort to fix the BLP violations in the article, but the pruning done by Middle 8 is a good start. Prolog (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I have addressed some of the more or less specific concerns raised here. Please discuss each part of the article piece by piece here. Instaurare (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You didn't address concerns... you simply expanded upon the issues everyone has with the edits by adding more... I went through and tried to fix a lot of the new stuff. But the older issues on the page remain as this has been a constant and sustained theme. Bottom line is, now five recent people on this talk page have problems with the edits you are making. This is not a personal attack. This is a clear fact that has been documented extensively over time on this talk page. BallotLine (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I've re-skimmed through the article, and for the most part it looks fairly unbiased. However, I think the coal section should be re-added. B-watchmework (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Most of this content has been there for months, if not longer, and now users are attempting to remove it - a few weeks before the election. Pretty clearly an agenda here. Instaurare (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Instaurare needs to read WP:Consensus; every editor above has repeatedly stated that his edits are biased. I've removed his most resent edit per WP:Consensus, WP:BURDEN, WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. B-watchmework (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
You cannot have consensus on content that hasn't been discussed. Please DISCUSS in detail, stop edit warring, and stop the personal attacks (reverting this shows your personal agenda). Instaurare (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
You keep on insisting on discussing the content, well the discussion has already taken place. Numerous edits have already attempted to have a discussion, but you insist on continuing down the wrong path. I've also listed a half dozen polices your braking, but again you don't seem to care. I believe with the evidence given in previous section, User:Instaurare non-neutral edits, as well as this one, presiding with an WP:AN is the only option. B-watchmework (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Where is this discussion? Instaurare (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, it is absurd to accuse me of an agenda when this attempt to whitewash the article is coming just weeks before the election. Instaurare (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
The content has been discussed repeatedly in the sections above. As for the claim that I'm acting biased, look at my edits, then look at yours, it's pretty self explanatory. B-watchmework (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Why will you not discuss specifically below? Why are you showing up three weeks before the election and accusing me of an agenda? Instaurare (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Because it's repeatedly been discussed, and once consensus is had you continue as if it's never happened. As for the continued claim that I'm acting biased, it's laughable, multiple editors have repeatedly complained about your non-neutral edits since at least June of this year. Until something changes, I'm not going to respond here again. B-watchmework (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Section-by-section discussion

Please discuss each section below rather than making large, disruptive removals.

Family and education

[discussion]

Business career intro

[discussion]

Federal City National Bank

[discussion]

American Pioneer Savings Bank and relationship with father-in-law

[discussion]

Global Crossing

[discussion]

GreenTech Automotive

[discussion]

Other investments

[discussion]

Fundraising career and relationship with the Clintons

[discussion]

Chairman of the Democratic National Committee

[discussion]

Post-DNC chairmanship

[discussion]

2009 gubernatorial campaign

[discussion]

2013 gubernatorial campaign

[discussion]

Energy and environmental issues

[discussion]

Offshore drilling

[discussion]

Coal

[discussion]

Abortion

[discussion]

Health care

[discussion]

Taxes and spending

[discussion]

Personal life

[discussion]

Memoir

[discussion]

Above "Section-by-section" chart and WP:BURDEN

This sentence opening the above section (which is unsigned but added by User:Instaurare [5]) misunderstands WP:BURDEN:

"Please discuss each section below rather than making large, disruptive removals."

WP:BURDEN says, on the contrary, that edits must be discussed before making wholesale (and disruptive, and potentially BLP-violating) restorals of challenged material. The burden is upon editors who wish to keep or restore material that is challenged as contentious. Very straightforward. This is true everywhere in WP mainspace, and nowhere moreso than BLP's,as I mentioned above [6].

Instaurare, I know it sucks to have one's hard work challenged in large swaths, but that's what happens sometimes, and there has been warning: multiple, earlier rumbles of discontent on this talk page with many of your edits. (FWIW, some of your writing may well be appropriate in non-BLP articles related to McAuliffe's political activities.) Now that WP:BURDEN has been explained, please accept the burden accordingly. Please do not keep restoring deleted material. It is not being deleted in bad faith; multiple editors have complained about bias both extensive and pervasive, so there is a consensus to redact a great deal, even if much of what is removed had been longstanding. (After all, not that many people have been intensively editing besides you, so it's just an accident of editorial self-selection that the article remained as it did for so long). You might want to revise the chart above, strike the opening sentence and begin filling it in accordingly with your proposals. Suggestion: Propose specific, discrete, brief edits. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN refers to unsourced or poorly sourced material. The Washington Post, New York Times, and all the others are not poor sources. The content is written in the same tone/style as the sources, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Also, I am suspicious of this "consensus" because this is all coming a few weeks before the election, which points towards bias. Also, I am not trying to restore one preferred version; the edit history shows that I have altered the content that you all are trying to remove multiple times to address these vague concerns, but they are being reverted without anybody taking the time to look at them, which furthers the agenda theory. I repeat my plea for others to work together to improve the article, rather than large-scale removals, which are POV-driven at worst. I'd prefer to think that it's just laziness. Let's heed the "D" in BRD. Instaurare (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN refers also to properly summarizing and weighting sources, which I'm not at all convinced that you're able to do, and a bunch of other editors evidently share those concerns. I don't think you've shown the capacity to properly evaluate and summarize sources; the article has become a complete mess with all the bias -- and apparently other editors share those concerns. Revert all you want -- WP:CONSENSUS still applies, and IIRC you're under editing sanction already in related areas, so you'll just be bringing further sanctions upon yourself. Your accusations of bias are classic WP:KETTLE, coming from an editor who inspired these complaints and who rewrote the article until 25% of its footnotes were to a single source about the Clintons' fundraising by Whitewater muckraker Jeff Gerth. Such are the large-scale additions of biased, poorly weighted material that we're now trying to slog through; of course these need to be removed and carefully scrutinized. The article's a mess, and there have been complaints about it for months, so that pretty much destroys your "agenda because, election soon" theory. (As if agendas only crop up weeks before elections.) It's simple: you don't have the trust of most of the editors here. It's going to take more than 3RR violations and brief edit summaries to convince us that your edits are good. We're all ears. (Note -- e/c with below, which I'll read now) --Middle 8 (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussing my recent edits: [7] - Restore oft-quoted VEDP official, sourced from WaPo. Restore info about McAuliffe's direct role in lobbying DHS, sourced from Watchdog.org. Restore analysis from ABC & WaPo but reduced weight.

[8] - Pertinent information sourced from WaPo, Talking Points Memo, Free Beacon.

[9] - Another detail on Clinton home loan. Remove quote from Gerth for weight. Remove golf bit as unencyclopedic.

[10] - Restore info about his tenure as DNC chairman. Remove some of it for weight, including quotes.

[11] - Mixing back in improperly removed content sourced from WaPo and other RSes while keeping some of B-watchmework's improvements.

Instaurare (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I have also moved most of the 2013 campaign content to the 2013 campaign article, per BLP concerns. Instaurare (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Partisan organizations like Watchdog.org are never reliable sources for BLPs (WP:BLPSPS), and partisan opinion pieces can not be used to make factual claims and conclusions about the subject and his political positions (WP:RSOPINION). Problematic blow-by-blow coverage added to an already unbalanced section does not become appropriate with a few wording changes, and the use of silly-season reports by news sites like The Washington Free Beacon, whether proper sources are available or not, is antithetical to the goal of writing a serious encyclopedia. Prolog (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I have removed cites from Watchdog and the Free Beacon. Instaurare (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

B-watchmework removed several passages without explanation, saying they hadn't been discussed, despite efforts to do so here. I have restored some of them with some alteration. Instaurare (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure that they (i.e. User:B-watchmework) were referring to the discussion above in general. We haven't discussed every statement cited to every source, but multiple editors have agreed that the article was better off after large parts of it were removed. I think User:B-watchmework's hope -- and mine -- would be that you attempt to justify the material you want to put in, piecewise, here on talk. It's a simple fact of WP:CONSENSUS that your edits won't stick unless other editors trust you, so that's another sense, complementary to WP:BURDEN, in which the burden rests with you (or any editor of a controversial article, especially one who has made multiple contentious edits). Thank you for your receptiveness to leaving out things like the sources User:Prolog pointed out; as for the rest, it's better to first suggest on talk, get agreement, and then add/restore the material. That's a common practice with controversial topics... it's not a bad-faith, busy-work demand; it's just how edits end up sticking. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Removing more material -- OK, I've looked at the last two major edits you've made, Instaurare, and they're just not encyclopedic.[12][13] See, this is why it's better for you to propose specific wording on talk and get consensus, because these edits only reinforce my (and others') expressed concern that you don't demonstrate the capacity to write encyclopedically. I hate doing this, but as long as you're making edits like this, they just aren't going to stick. Reverting to this version of the article, prior to your latest string of edits, and incorporating a minor usage correction (which ==> whom). Again, please propose wording here and get consensus before adding stuff. Not an unusual request on WP. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Business career - add "According to the Post, "McAuliffe is, at his core, a salesman – and even called himself a 'hustler' in his autobiography." - extensive non-opinion piece from WaPo.


I don't hate this, but an accurate description of his business career replaces the need for an all-encompassing summary of it such as this.
I suppose, but doesn't this serve as an intro to the business career section? Would it be better in the lead? Instaurare (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


  • Federal City National Bank - add "In 1991, the bank was cited by federal regulators for unsafe or unsound business practices." - Wording taken verbatim from NYT.


That line is removed front context. The fact is he then saved the bank. Which is already in the section. That piece is also written by Jeff Gerth. BallotLine (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and what did he save the bank from? From being shut down by the feds or unsound practices. Also, what's the problem with the author? Instaurare (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


  • American Pioneer Savings Bank - at the end, add "McAuliffe used some of the proceeds from the deal to purchase Jefferson National Title Insurance, a Florida company, and sold back some of McAuliffe's shares to the pension fund. The Department of Labor then filed a lawsuit against McAuliffe and Moore, accusing them of imprudent business practices in the deal and also in a $6 million loan the fund made to a real estate company controlled by McAuliffe, which McAuliffe used to clear up his father-in-law's debt but soon defaulted on the loan. With the help of a fundraising contact, McAuliffe bought a troubled house-building company that had been buying some of the land formerly held by Swann's bank and became its chairman. After his bankruptcy, McAuliffe paid Swann to 'help with the management' of his companies." - Sourced from NYT and Businessweek.


This is a lie. If you read the source you provided, McAuliffe was NOT sued by the Labor Department. Moore and another Trustee were sued! As such, it is currently incorrect on the Wiki page. Your source says:

"Mr. Moore, now retired, praised Mr. McAuliffe in an interview and defended the pension fund's fiduciary care. But he declined to discuss the fund's dealings with Mr. McAuliffe because he and another former trustee have been sued by the Labor Department." This means Moore and another Trustee were sued. Not McAuliffe.

Here is a court doc that shows the two others sued, not McAulife. [14] BallotLine (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You are correct - I must have misread the source - he was actually sued by the Resolution Trust Corporation. I'll re-examine. Instaurare (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Add this version of GreenTech section - well sourced and extensive reports by RSes such as WaPo, NYT, ABC, and others establish noteworthiness. Attempts have been made to trim down some parts. The current section has been totally gutted and does not explain anything about the story.
Not adding a section from GreenTech. That's what that wiki page is for! The entire story of the company does not belong in someone's biography. The pertinent points of his involvement are covered. BallotLine (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Which is why I cut it down to only the content that relates directly to McAuliffe. Instaurare (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Global Crossing - add "...and 10,000 employees to lose their jobs in one of the largest bankruptcies in U.S. history." - Sourced from AP ("Global Crossing's bankruptcy still ranks among the largest in U.S. history") and CNNMoney ("Reuters reported that the company is the fourth largest bankruptcy case in the country's history").
No. He was an investor that played no management role. This page isn't about the history of Global Crossing. It's about his involvement. He didn't fire 10,000 people. He didn't make a decision that took down the company. This is another attempt at slander. You continue to miss the difference between a company and a person. BallotLine (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
An attempt at slander? Wow, what happened to WP:AGF? Instaurare (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Add "At the end of Bill Clinton's second term, McAuliffe set up Global Crossing CEO Gary Winnick for golf with Clinton, after which Winnick pledged $1 million to Clinton's presidential library. In 1999, an information technology firm called Telergy put McAuliffe on its board of directors to help forge contacts with national politicians. Shortly afterward, McAuliffe convinced Winnick to invest $40 million in Telergy, and Telergy then paid McAuliffe a $1.2 million referral fee." - Accurate and reliably sourced from AP and WaPo.
Fail to see how notable to his career, especially since it was only reported because of an opposition campaign add. BallotLine (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
It has been covered by multiple reliable sources which do not even talk about the campaign ad. Your objection does not hold. Also, there are more sources now. Instaurare (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Add this version of Fundraising career and relationship with the Clintons - current writing is false, saying the mortgage loan was made after Clinton left office, when it occurred in 1999 when he was still in office.
Where is a source that proves its false? BallotLine (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Article was written in 1999.
    • "'McAuliffe's political clout and profile grew significantly during the Clinton presidency. Jeff Gerth of The New York Times wrote that McAuliffe has 'transformed the art of raising money for public figures into the art of raising money for himself, leveraging a personal fortune from his political fund-raising contacts.'[1] The Washington Post has said, "He is a dealmaker who made millions from investments. And many of his biggest deals came in partnership with prominent donors and politicians, creating a portrait over the years of a Washington insider who got rich as he rose to power within the Democratic Party.'" Reliably sourced from extensive non-opinion pieces from WaPo and NYT.
This is fluff. The article already paints a picture of his career. We don't need Jeff Gerth's analysis in a biography of a living person. BallotLine (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I fail to see how this is fluff. It is a reliably-sourced summary that belongs in the intro. Instaurare (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Health care - add "He has vowed not to sign any budget that does not include a Medicaid expansion, which led to questions as to whether he would support a state government shutdown over the issue; McAuliffe's campaign said that he was not threatening a shutdown." - due weight, factual summary from WaPo.
Questions from who? Republicans? If we want to include the things they think, then we all have a lot of work to do on Ken Cuccinelli's page to add everything the Democrats think about him. Fact is McAuliffe never said he'd shutdown the Virginia government. Let's use our heads here and remember this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. BallotLine (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Why are you looking at this article through the lens of Cuccinelli's article? Instaurare (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Taxes and spending - "McAuliffe and his campaign have repeatedly declined to give a cost for his spending priorities, saying he would pay for them through unspecified government efficiency improvements, the Medicaid expansion, and federal money from Obamacare. McAuliffe said tax increases would not be on the table to pay for policy proposals." Accurate summary, sourced from Washington Times, CBS-DC/AP, Washington Times 2.
Removed the spin. "McAuliffe had said he would pay for his spending priorities through government efficiency improvements, the Medicaid expansion, and federal money from Obamacare. McAuliffe said tax increases would not be on the table to pay for policy proposals." BallotLine (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
What spin? Instaurare (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Criticism - add "...involving McAuliffe's personal life, including leaving his wife in the delivery room to attend a party; leaving his wife and newborn son in the car on the way home from the hospital for a fundraiser; and arguing with his wife's doctors over health care reform while his wife was in labor with another of their sons." - Probably less weight than it deserves. Why not cover that which has attracted criticism?
Why not? Well because the Buzzfeed accounts are already mentioned. BallotLine (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
No, it simply says that BuzzFeed published them, not what they actually say. Instaurare (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I am also adding a sentence to fill the picture of his position on coal, sourced from the Richmond Times-Dispatch/PolitiFact - current version is disingenuous. Instaurare (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for posting these here; my feedback coming asap -- let's you or I leave notes on currently involved editors' talk pages as reminders if they don't weigh in over next couple days. Middle 8 (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Any objections...? Instaurare (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes. They are listed above. And is there any reason why historically and currently every edit of yours is negative in nature?
Is there any reason why you aren't applying WP:AGF, and treating this article as a counterpart to Ken Cuccinelli's? This just gives further credence to the fact that these objections are being raised because of the election coming up. Instaurare (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
That is not at all what I did. I mentioned his page once, to make a point about the incorrect tactics you are using to edit this article. You include partisan-driven information and inject it into a biography. It's overwhelmingly obvious and it's not what Wikipedia is supposed to be for. You would't have months of people calling out your tactics if you weren't in the wrong. Your previous troubles and username on Wikipedia are another example of this. Furthermore, you have inserted information about him being sued, which was fabricated and then tried to expand upon it and highlight it even more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BallotLine (talk • contribs) 21:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The Washington Post and New York Times are partisan-driven? Instaurare (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Instaurare, I would advise you to reread the advice that HJ Mitchell gave you when he removed his restrictions on your editing: "...if you start making edits that don't abide by both the letter and the spirit of policy (and relevant guidelines, ArbCom rulings, etc), I suspect it won't be long before you're in an even worse position than you were with the restrictions. Your POV oozes out in a preponderance of your edits (and it pretty much always has), despite many attempts by many different editors over the years to offer advice to you to try and bring about a change in your behavior. I'll offer an admonition from WP:CPUSH: "Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy, or to advance a specific agenda, damages the encyclopedia and disrupts the process of collaborative editing." Nobody should be electioneering on Wikipedia, and your accusations that others are doing so certainly looks like an example of the pot calling the kettle black. Are you really trying to end up at ANI again? To echo what HJ said, I don't think it will go well for you there. In reading through the sections above and examining your editing of this article, I'm surprised nobody's taken it there yet. Mojoworker (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mojoworker on all the points cited. B-watchmework (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I was busy for awhile and then, for last few days, have let myself get sucked into a flurry of discussion of other topics. I should have devoted some of that time to this page (and sorry if this appeared like bad-faith stalling). Will do my best to comment; above proposed additions are a little hard to sort through. Refactoring a bit might help. But I won't wait for that. I may refactor a bit myself -- to make it easier for others to post under each proposed edit -- if no one (especially Instaurare) minds. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of content

I invite users who have been removing content, citing non-existent consensus, to discuss the material here. Instaurare (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact is these are the same types of edits decided against on this very talk page last year. They are a daily negative play by play on a BLP page that is an obvious hit job full of commentary and opinion. To say there is a non-existent consensus when more than a few people have reverted these edits is silly. I'm sorry, but your history on this page proves you can't keep a NPOV. Your editing style would make this the longest page on Wikipedia as the tiniest of details and commentary are continuously being included - and for whatever reason, only include negative events and tone. There is no objectivity in these edits, and they violate the spirt in in which Wikipedia is supposed to exist. I have cited a few problems with these edits that violate Wiki guidelines and I could probably list off a dozen more, but given that there is a clear consensus against the content you have added on this page over the course of over a year and again over the course of the last couple of months the issues are overwhelmingly obvious. BallotLine (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Completely agree with your assessment. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Business career

Hello Buzzards-Watch Me Work, BallotLine, Mojoworker - I was looking at this page today and the Business career section really struck me as being weighted heavily. I think we could probably agree that McAuliffe is most known as DNC Chair/Fundraiser/Governor, yet the most detailed and comprehensive section relates to his business history. In the grand scheme of things, and the way these BLP pages tend to work, it would seem this section should be condensed/shortened due to the notability of the subject matter. I think it's also worth noting that its expansion was largely done by a user who has been banned from this page for constant NPOV issues. I've tagged you three here as you have seemed to be pretty active on this page historically. Would be interested in hearing your thoughts and what might be the best way to approach editing this section. Thanks. Mandate41 (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, the business section does seem overly weighted, and there are some things in there that belong in the individual company articles and not here. I just removed a couple of those... Mojoworker (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Mojoworker, Mandate41 - I think you guys are probably right. They might not need to be broken down by each company either, could be one narrative over time. I can remove some of the items similar to what Mojo did. And then perhaps we consolidate them if you guys agree? BallotLine (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. I think consolidation would be an improvement. Mojoworker (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the input all. Mandate41 (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Today, it appears whitewashed.
  • The deal with IBEW is described as an "equal partnership", despite McAuliffe only having invested $100 in it. And it doesn't mention the aftermath, where IBEW lost money and the IBEW officers faced legal sanctions for their imprudence, while Terry walked away with a huge profit.
  • The hugely successful IPO of Global Crossing is covered, but its subsequent decline and bankruptcy is not.
The view that McAuliffe's business success has come at the expense of others is significant and covered by reliable sources. It should be included here too.
Here's a more recent article: [15]
Thundermaker (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Terry McAuliffe. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 05:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

The consensus is against including the words in bold in the proposed text as non-neutral and undue weight. Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the first sentence of the Voting rights sub-section include the words in bold? "On April 22, 2016, McAuliffe signed an executive order restoring voting rights to more than 200,000 ex-felons in Virginia, including those convicted of violent crimes such as murder and rape. Instaurare (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes. The phrase comes almost verbatim from the New York Times article that serves as the ref for the sentence. Numerous reliable sources include the fact that the order restored voting rights to ex-felons convicted of violent crime. Examples: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. Instaurare (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No - We ought to follow the sources here. The subject of the sources that do mention the "murder and rape" thing is the executive order, not McAuliffe. Calling that specific factoid in relation to McAuliffe seems like it's just trying to unduly stress one particular part of what is a fairly sweeping executive order. Should we mention all the folks who aren't rapists and murderers who will have their rights restored too? Or do we just want to focus on the rapists and murderers? NickCT (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Follow the sources like the New York Times? Instaurare (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Instaurare: - Was the subject of Times article the executive order or McAuliffe? Is the subject of this WP article the executive order or McAuliffe? NickCT (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • NoThe states of Vermont and Maine each allow prisoners to vote. I'm not aware that this has ever caused a problem, and it is an important way to reintegrate prisoners into society. So why should arbitrary classes of prisoners be set up to discriminate over some, rather than others? Who would "cast the first stone" in making such differentiations? Activist (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Your opinion on the merits of the order itself is irrelevant. We're discussing what should be included in the article. Instaurare (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for closure of the RFC@Meatsgains:, @NickCT:, @Instaurare:,@Mandate41: The request for comment has been open for eight days. Instaurare authored the original edit to the article on 23 August, restored it twice after deletions, then made the Request for Comment on 23 September. That editor found no support for keeping the phrase which had been repeatedly deleted. In the past eight days, three additional different editors here have commented against keeping it. I would suggest that the RfC has demonstrated a consensus against retention and that it be closed. Activist (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Came here via bot pint, after proposed closure. I'll add my no vote, since emphasizing that seems like a rather blatant bit of editorializing, and further add that I agree there seems to be a consensus in favor of "no". Chris Hallquist (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    • No. The crimes for which people have already completed their sentence, are not relevant to the issue of voting rights. The implication that allowing freed men and women to vote is too dangerous, is absurd. Bcharles (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No. This language doesn't appear to be neutral to me. The fact that the New York Times article doesn't mention "murder and rape" until the 8th paragraph suggests that this detail isn't sufficiently notable to include in the first sentence of a 3-sentence summary. (I'm not watching this page so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No. For the reasons cited by Chris Hallquist and Activist. If a pardon means anything, even if the the media re-tries a case for reasons of salacious or malicious intent, it should not be recorded in an ancyclopaedia as a questionable pardon. To support or question a pardon would make Wikipedia a respondent in a legal case. I comment here as a disinterested party invited by Legobot. Peter S Strempel | Talk 07:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

video

video

Victor Grigas (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Number of felons falling under McAuliffe Executive Pardon: 13,000 or 50-60,000?

Gov. McAuliffe's own official statements place the likely number of re-enfranchised felons in 2016 at 13,000. However, 2 facts should be considered. (1) The mass pardon and re-enfranchisement was seen by many as a controversial, Democrat-partisan decision. Should the governor's own estimates be trusted given that he would lose face if the number were higher? (2) Sources such as Edgardo Cortes (VA elections comissioner) told various investigative journalists that the number was much higher, between 50-60,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguide42 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

CONDESCENDING SOUND SPELLINGS

In light of the recognition of Crista McAuliffe and that with over 30 years of knowing how to pronounce her surname, we sure as hell do not need a condescending sound spelling for Terry McAuliffe. So stop treating us like idiots.--67.86.58.36 (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

American hoteliers?

He is in this category but I can't find anything here or doing searches that points to him having a career in hotels. Am I missing something?--JAMillerKC (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Cite#10 from the Washington Post states "He has earned millions as a banker, real estate developer, home builder, hotel owner, Internet venture capitalist and credit-card marketer."--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. The Washington Post is vague, but OK.--JAMillerKC (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup required

This article, for some reason, repeats the subject's surname in almost every single sentence. In the first subsection, for example:

In 1985, McAuliffe helped found the Federal City National Bank, a Washington, D.C.–based local bank. In January 1988, when McAuliffe was thirty years old, the bank's board elected McAuliffe as chairman, making him the youngest chairman in the United States Federal Reserve Bank's charter association. In 1991, McAuliffe negotiated a merger with Credit International Bank, which he called his "greatest business experience." McAuliffe became the vice-chairman of the newly merged bank.

That is a paragraph of four sentences, in which his surname is repeated five times. As far as I can see the entire article is written like this. So, I've added a cleanup tag, requesting that it be written in normal English: in about 80% of cases, the surname should be replaced by a pronoun. 51.6.138.24 (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Around 70 McAuliffes have been changed to personal pronouns. Please restore the service tag if you think more should be done. Cheers! --Woko Sapien (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Grammar mistake

There's a grammar mistake in the education section that should read 'vetoed' not 'voted' for. I can't correct it because the page is locked. 70.191.130.23 (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the mistake's been corrected since. Feel free to suggest any other improvements you can think of. Cheers! --Woko Sapien (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Misleading in the education section

It says the supposed book ban bill was supported by Republicans and social conservatives when in fact about half of Democrats voted for it along with the Republican majority at the time. It's misleading as it stands. 70.191.130.23 (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The sources indicate that Democrats opposed the bill. Per the sources, it looks like the only social conservative group that opposed the bill was the Family Foundation of Virginia, which I added. I personally can't view the link you included above. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
All Dems voted to sustain his veto, however, 13 voted for the bill in 2016 and another 8 voted for it in 2017. Both of those figures are for the house and one Dem senator voted for in 2016 and 2017, respectively. The point is a group of Dems voted for it in both 2016 and 2017 but the article leads one to believe it was only Republicans who supported it. 70.191.130.23 (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Here's a news article that specifically mentions a Dem senator voting for it, it's not just a Republican bill. 70.191.130.23 (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021

Remove the line in the first para referring to Gov. McAuliffe as an unremarkable white bread… Shvdca (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The first para needs cleaning up. It’s been vandalized. Shvdca (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021 (2)

Eliminate the text calling Mcaulife an “Unremarkable piece of white bread” 71.191.93.65 (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done clpo13(talk) 02:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Gerth was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_McAuliffe/Archive_2&oldid=1137224741"