Talk:James S. C. Chao

Drug Trafficking

Untitled

This section does not belong in the article. The claim itself probably does not meet WP:V because it's only been covered in a small handful of far left opinion sites which border on being tabloids. More important though, regardless of the verifiability of the claim, the claim itself does not have anything to do with James Chao. The only reason a perceived connection exists is in the context of a political attack. Think about it this way.... everytime a person gets caught with drugs at an airport, should we add that incident to the page of the airlines CEO with the implication the CEO had something to do with it? Finally remember that wikipedia is not a tabloid and BLP must be written conservatively Byates5637 (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It's hardly a tabloid claim, nor a simple matter of someone being caught with a dime bag at the airport. This was one of Chao's cargo ships (Panamax size, from the look of it), and was detained by the Colombian Navy with 40 kilos of cocaine. That's $7 million wholesale. This incident was covered not only by The Nation but also by El Tiempo, the largest newspaper in Colombia ([1]). The mention of this event thus meets both WP:V and WP:RS. Your describing these news as a "tabloid" story from "far left opinion sites" probably says more about what motivates you to delete this entry, than the entry itself. BLPs shouldn't be "written conservatively" - they should reflect what reliable sources say and verifiable news as they happen. I should add that I wasn't the only editor to add news of this to the article ([2]). Thank You. Nononsenseplease (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the linked article from the Columbian paper. There's not a single mention of James Chao in that article. What does any of this have to do with James Chao? You may want to refresh your familiarity with wikipedia's policies. WP:BLP The first sentence of the third paragraph states that the articles should be written conservatively. If there were some formal investigation or changes against James Chao related to this incident then the matter should be here. There is nothing of the sort currently. Byates5637 (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

What nonsense. That El Tiempo didn't mention him by name is immaterial; the cocaine was found in a cargo ship belonging to his shipping firm, the one he founded and owns. The article in The Nation makes it clear, furthermore, that the Ping May was detained for that reason and that this is still under investigation - all of which are absolutely relevant to the man's career in shipping. Your description of this as a "tabloid" story from "far left opinion sites" pretty much betrays your desire to have this event expunged for POV reasons. Thanks. Nononsenseplease (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The Ping May being detained may be a noteworthy thing to include on the wiki page for the Ping May (if it existed), but not for James Chao. You need to demonstrate a connection between the event and James Chao which you have not. Being founder of the company that manages the shipping vessel does not make this incident relevant to the life of James Chao anymore than someone shipping drugs via UPS is relevant to the founder of UPS. Implying that James Chao was somehow involved in this is libel and a clear violation of WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL - end of story. Byates5637 (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Nobody's implying that "Chao was somehow involved in this" - you are. You're also deleting a significant development, reported in various reliable sources (the two above, plus among others the Baltimore Sun and the Louisville Courier). The UPS analogy is also a poor one, since while UPS is publicly owned by stockholders, Foremost Shipping isn't (it's privately owned by Chao and his family). Even if that weren't the case, and even if one could plausibly say that Chao had no idea because, like UPS, he owned thousands of trucks and hundreds of warehouses and planes (Foremost operates only 16 cargo ships), 40 kilos of cocaine worth $7 million and the detention and investigation of one of Chao's 16 cargo ships in Colombia is definitely notable and merits mention. Your argument, then, fails on that criteria as well.

You've already made it quite clear by your comments that you'd like to delete these news out of a strictly personal political preference, which would be flouting NPOV guidelines if allowed to stand. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. Nononsenseplease (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You continually bring up my "political preference" as a way to attack my motives instead of addressing the policy violations I mention. You should assume good faith of others edits. FWIW, I do not have any strong political preferences and did not even vote in the last election. The only reason I mentioned the political leanings of the source material was to point out that it wasn't an objective source - it was reported as a political attack from a very partisan organization. Byates5637 (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

A "tabloid" story from "far left opinion sites" - your words. I think you should at least stop pretending that you aren't trying to airbrush this article for POV reasons. Regards, Nononsenseplease (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw this listed at Third Opinion, where I'm one of the most frequent contributors, and considered giving an "official" 3O under that policy, but I'm instead going to give an opinion outside that project (which may have the effect of creating the Third Opinion Paradox, but if so, so it be). (I'm also the most frequent contributor over at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, where I've closed the request made there due to the prior request having been made at 3O.) Here's my first opinion: Both of you should be blocked from editing for edit warring over this issue. That's absolutely unacceptable conduct at Wikipedia, and if either of you edits the article again about it before coming to a consensus here I will, indeed, ask for just that and/or ask for page protection of the article. As for the content itself, I don't think it should be included for two reasons: First, a procedural one: This material was first added in this edit on October 31 and was immediately challenged in this edit one day later on November 1. It has been in play ever since. When any edit — whether an addition or removal of text — is challenged, pursuant to the Consensus policy it is the burden of the editor or editors seeking to make the edit to obtain a consensus to include it. If no consensus is formed, then the article remains as it was without that edit. Clearly, no consensus has been formed here and the material should not be included until one has been formed. Second, if this was an article about Foremost Group then this material might be included. But Chao and Foremost are different legal entities and there are many individuals and agents between Chao and this incident and, indeed, the liability of Foremost Group itself or some particular employee of Foremost has not yet been established. To include it in a biographical article about him tars him, individually, without any direct evidence to link him, personally, to responsibility for the incident. The inclusion here therefore violates, in my opinion, the undue weight policy and perhaps also violates at least the spirit of the Biographies of living persons policy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Transporter Man. With all due respect, that really doesn't help. Nobody's "tarring" the subject of the article. This was a very notable, real-world event related to a cargo ship personally owned by Mr. Chao as the sole proprietor of Foremost Maritime, confirmed by both a number of reliable sources and local Colombian media; that the event may be less than flattering to the subject is irrelevant, as Wikipedia is not James Chao's personal PR office.

Secondly, the "lack of consensus" you describe is one individual insisting for obvious POV reasons that reliably-sourced, neutrally-written news regarding Chao's personal property be left out. Undue weight might apply if I had added the sentence to the article lead - which to my knowledge no one ever did. POV-pushing by omission is just as bad -or worse- than by the addition of unsourced allegations, you know. And of course these are NOT allegations - it was a REAL incident concerning the subject's personally-held firm and of its 16 cargo ships. Leaving high-profile news out amounts to airbrushing à la Stalin (who, as you know, famously had anyone who fell out of favor with him -even very well-known officials- airbrushed out of photos, sometimes laughably so). The header -which was not my idea- could use a kinder, gentler tone though; "August 2014 Ping May incident" is more neutral AND encyclopedic.

Thanks.Nononsenseplease (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Nononsenseplease has once again restored the contested material to the page. This is his 3rd revert in 24 hours and I suggest he be blocked from making future edits per WP:3RR I won't undo his addition, because you are correct Transporterman - the edit warring is ridiculous. In that case though - what IS the appropriate way for me to protect this article?Byates5637 (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

On additional review of WP:3RR rule I see that an exception is specifically made for removing libelous and contentious topics from BLPs which makes me think it is okay for me to continue to revert these changes. I won't just yet because I'd like to consider any guidance Transporterman has for how I should handle this issue. Byates5637 (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@ Byates: I would not rely on that exception, if I were you. That exception requires the material to be "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons" (emphasis added). The reason I said that this violates the "spirit" of BLP is that it arguably does not violate any of BLP's express terms. @Nononsenseplease: Re leaving out news, see NOTNEWS. And, yes, this lack of consensus comes from one editor's objection, but that's the way it works around here. This is an encyclopedia and we have ways of doing things. This just doesn't fit. I've asked an administrator to either block you or to protect the page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I've answered on my talk page, and have no interest in mediating here, as frankly, TransporterMan is more qualified, but I will drop a few notes as an objective, uninvolved and experienced editor. First, at Byates: TransporterMan is correct that this doesn't perfectly fit the mold of BLP violation, although my natural inclination would be to cut you some extra slack because I think your efforts were clearly on the outskirts of that policy, and unquestionably in good faith. I don't recommend continuing it, however. Reverting via BLP is tricky, and I personally tend to grand extra rope. Not every admin is guaranteed to see it the same way. Nononsenseplease, I've already replied on my talk page, but again, I am strongly suggesting, and simply requesting, you revert yourself and continue discussion here. This would provide me with every reason in the world to conclude a block isn't needed, and serve as an olive branch, and as a step to reconciliation and consensus building. I'm asking you to be the bigger man. I'm hoping you are up to the task. Unquestionably, if we get back to revert wars, I will be less chatty and simply start blocking people. This should serve as a final warning to all who are editing. This is a BLP, a real human being. The level of protection I will afford is much greater than articles on apples or New York. Dennis - 2¢ 19:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, 40kg is not a huge amount for a huge ship - [3] seems to imply it would be under two cubic feet. Or about the volume of an overnight bag. Implying that the head of the shipping company in any is "involved" is, IMHO a major stretch, and does involves WP:BLP issues. Collect (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Elaine Chao IG report

The investigators also found that she repeatedly asked agency staff members to help do chores for her father, including editing her father’s Wikipedia page, promoting his Chinese-language biography, and directing two staff members from the Transportation secretary’s office to send a copy of her father’s book “to a well-known C.E.O. of a major U.S. corporation” to ask if he would write a forward for the book.[4]

Emphasis mine. We should check this article for neutrality, especially see if we can determine which edits came from her staff. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's a related article from the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/03/us/politics/elaine-chao-inspector-general-report.html. Should we tag the page with {{COI}}? Chlod (say hi!) 00:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't, at this point, unless we determine that the interference was major. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with Muboshgu. This users asks us to just ignore WP:NPOV and I don't believe we have the discretion to do so. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

GreenFrogsGoRibbit, I am not suggesting "ignoring" POV problems. Why would I have posted here in the first place if that's what I was saying? I'm saying let's see if there actually are. I haven't read the page yet so I don't know. It's hasty to just up and tag the page without consideration. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Tagging. XTools reveals that the most major contributor to the article, Atherbert has a total of 4,304 added bytes. All edits of said user are made towards this article. Stale. Chlod (say hi!) 00:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

We should also edit this page and let readers know that her staff edited this page as well. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

a/c the OIG report, her request to he staffer to edit the page was made on Jan 6 , 2018. [5] p.11 . The staffer apparent told the OIG report they were "the Secretary's WP point person" (same page). There's some possible leads at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mmacvs/Archive. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

So this is the edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_S._C._Chao&oldid=819007845). GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Done[6], but the edit looks harmless - Wikidemon (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikidemon It's still a WP:COI violation. The user should be warned. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done the edit was two years ago and is the only edit the account ever made, so a warning isn't going to do anything. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

See here for some remarks on wider implications regarding the article Elaine Chao and its revision history. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This edit made on Jan 6 2018 may indeed be connected to Chao's office. That account only made that one edit, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Isn't that the same edit as the one I had mentioned? Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you mentioned it on Elaine Chao's talk page, I was mentioning it here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah now I see it was already mentioned here. If that's the only suspicious edit we can find, maybe the staffers didn't do as much to this page as they claimed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)