Talk:Linda Chavez

message: Why take out the blatant error in her syndicated column? It's an indication of her work. Granted, if there were thousands of such errors, it would be pointless to list them here. However, given that the article is currently a stub, why not keep it for now, until there is more information to place there? --Asbl 19:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gaffles by Linda Chavez

message: First of all, I would like to apologize for deleting those sentences from the article without discussion.  I am very, very new to Wikipedia (in fact, I didn't even have a "name" when I deleted those sentences earlier).  I have been doing some reading on Wikipedia policies and now see that it is best to not just delete without first engaging in discussion.  I actually am not even sure that this is the forum where I am supposed to be doing the discussion; please correct me if I am mistaken.
Allow me now to explain why I would delete from this article everything between the words ". . . is a syndicated columnist" and the words "Chavez is the president of the think tank . . . ".  I believe you may have misunderstood my point about the difference between having just one error vs. thousands of errors.  What I am saying is that a single error in a single column about a subject over which there exists--even weeks later--substantial confusion, is simply too insignificant to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article.  I think it is safe to say that there is likely not a single columnist out there--be they on the left or right--who has not made an error of fact at one time or another.  The question to ask is not if the columnist is human.  The question to ask is, is there a pattern to this person's behavior?  Richard Nixon had a life-long pattern of maintaining shady associations with people who thought that the rules did not apply to him.  Bill Clinton had a long pattern of providing factually correct (yet deceptive) answers to difficult questions.  Stephen Glass had a pattern of outright fabrication in his articles.  And it is these patterns that we note when we find these people on the pages of history books or encyclopedias, not the aberrant errors they may have committed.
Granted, there are exceptions, and the reason for this is clear.  When someone commits an act that is out of their normal pattern, it can still qualify for historical or encyclopedic mention.  But only if it is something of major significance, with far-reaching consequences.  Throughout his political career, Gerald Ford was considered above reproach for his honesty and ethics (which was part of the reason Nixon made Ford his VP during the height of scandal--in a vain attempt to insulate himself with Ford's squeaky clean armor).  But when Ford pardoned Nixon--something that violated Ford's lifelong patterns, well then of course it is something that gets placed in an encyclopedia.  Because it is an undeniably noteworthy historical event.
I frequently read Chavez's column.  And I can state that, like all of us, Chavez has made mistakes.  But unlike most people, she has no problem owning up to them.  In her column of August 24th of this year she acknowledged an error of fact that she made regarding Jamie Gorelick, the former Clinton official and member of the 9/11 commission.  There was no public outcry for Chavez to retract her error--after all, political columnists are not generally expected to maintain the same standard of accuracy as regular journalists (though even they, too, make mistakes).  But she did it anyway.  
So when the history books and encyclopedias are written in 2010, will this error of Chavez’s really merit inclusion?  That’s just not the way I see Wikipedia.  But I’m new.  Maybe I’m wrong.  I’m interested in what others have to say.
:Granted, this "error" is not serious. However, as far as I know, she did not issue an appology (BTW, I do hold columnists to the same standard as journalists). I therefore have to question whether it was an error, or a fabrication, which should reflect on her career. --Asbl 16:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't apologize for making the edit. That's what Wikipedia is all about. You make the changes, and let the community determine whether they are appropriate. --Asbl 16:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Historical Significance of a Human Error

message: Argghhh!  I don't want to post anonymously, but when I just made my post on the Linda Chavez column, my name did not appear.  I am Unschool, and I see that Asbl's name shows up on his comment.  How do I get mine to do the same?
:Type four tildes at the end of your contribution, four of these ~.  Moriori 21:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Click here to go to your own talk page. Moriori 21:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A Newbie's Plea for Help

message: Media Matters for America goes to great lengths to document why their posts are noteworthy. In some cases, Linda Chavez herself took back her statements as a result of being called by Media Matters. If you can show even one instance in the list which is an objectionable mention, I would be OK with your phrasing "what it regards as errors...." --Asbl 05:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Another comment: we have already gone above and beyond the call of duty vis a vis NPOV, by using the words "errors and mis-statements" rather than "lies and distortions" (which are probably more accurate, but less NPOV). --Asbl 15:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Media Matters List

message: Egads, we could argue until the cows come home about this.  Personally, I think that the term "liberal" is the most accurate term for those individuals who largely share the agenda of the American political left. (Obviously, it is important to specify "American", as Americans on both sides of the aisle have by and large abandoned the original meaning of the term.)  Plenty of people on the left are proud to use the term "liberal".  In my experience, those who tend to use the term "progressive" to describe themselves tend to be running in constituencies where it is necessary to mitigate their left-leaning views.  Those who run without fear of rejection are more likely to use the term "liberal".  In other words, a Democrat on the left side of his party is more likely to describe himself as a liberal if he is running for office in Boston than would be a Democrat with similar views who is running for office in Charlotte.  In Charlotte, "progressive" would be the more-likely moniker.
On the other hand, quite inexplicably, when discussing plans for governance, it appears that the term "progressive agenda" is almost universally favored by those of the left.  If someone says "liberal agenda", they almost always have an "R" next to their name, and are spitting venom.
Anyway, I prefer "liberal", as I believe it is a term of pride, not cowardice.  But I've substituted in here "left-leaning", as I hope that this is a term that no one would take issue with. Unschool 00:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the reasons you've pointed out the term progressive is more NPOV than the term liberal. Similiarly, the term conservative is more likely to be acceptable than the term fundamentalist. I'm okay with left-leaning, however. LegCircus 00:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberal/Progressive

message: Hey, Leg Circus, I just noticed something else.  We can all agree that Chavez is not a fan of unions--that's why Bush the Younger sought (unsuccessfully) to place her in charge of the Labor Department.  But I don't know if this statement of yours is accurate.  For one thing, when exactly has she been in a position to "bust" unions?  She certainly is highly critical of them, but that's not the same thing.
Given that she was a highly-placed staffer of one of the nation's largest unions (The American Federation of Teachers) for several years, she has some limited credibility on union issues.  I don't think we can make this statement without some corroboration.  I'll leave it in there for now, awaiting your thoughts. Unschool 08:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chavez--Union Buster?

message: I'm sorry that I assumed that readers would know about Linda Chavez's history with the AFT.  No, when calling her a "former union official", I was not confusing her with Linda Chavez-Thompson.  It is ironic, I suppose, that two women with such similarity in their names would have such totally opposite positions on unions today, but not nearly as ironic as it is that, twenty-five years ago, they were on the same side.
Linda Chavez also was originally registered to vote as a Democrat, like most union personnel, but I don't know dates on when she made the switch, so I've left that out. Unschool 05:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion with Linda Chavez-Thompson

message: Excellent cleanup of article, Asbl.  It's much better now.  
Only issue I have is a minor one.  I don't think her senatorial campaign is "trivia".  On the other hand, I can't say that it belongs in any of the other sections, so I'm not touching it. Unschool 06:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I have now discovered more information about that campaign, I put it in its own section. Basically, I created the "Trivia" section as a cleanup for information that I could not place anywhere else. Remember what I started with. Everything under the sun came in one section, and I had to define new sections. Prior to the new information about the campaign, there was not enough information to justify the campaign receiving its own section. --Asbl 18:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: NPOV Alert !! Liberal bias strikes again!!
Being gay myself I must demand some substation of this sentence other than Mr.  Michelangelo Signorile’s say so (whom ever he might be).   
“In 1986 Chavez ran as a Republican from Maryland for the United States Senate against Democrat Barbara Mikulski. Chavez made Mikulski's sexual orientation a central issue of the campaign. Chavez went on to lose to Mikulski by a very large margin “.
Who says other than Michelangelo Signorile (very buff on the cover of his new book by the way!) that she made the alleged homosexuality of her opponent the central issue of her senate campaign?  I find that very difficult to believe. 
A quick check of Michelangelo Signorile shows him not the be the best of sources.  He is best known (according to Publisher's Weekly) for his columns outing closeted gays whose opinions he doesn't like.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0786716193/ref=ase_michelangelosign/002-6625230-3292847?s=books&v=glance&n=283155&tagActionCode=michelangelosign
I have thumbed through Linda's books and recall one tongue in cheek comment (which was funny not mean) and that’s it.
I do know Linda does not approve of homosexuality and she is free to think that because this is after all still a free country.  Now here is where I have to point to your bias.  What you are attempting to do is do the thinking for the reader. You are telling them what to think. 
If you have confidence in your opinions than you should consider that truth to be self-evident.  Trust people to come to the right conclusions and who knows.  Maybe they will if your position is in fact the correct one.
I must confess to being angry when she defended Santorum's infamous remarks but these biased articles have prompted me forgive her. 
The writer of this clearly hates this woman.   Let’s prove it the gay bashing (if there is any merit to the charge) and lets do so in a fair and honest way. 
Also it shows bias to say she lost by a “very large margin”. That shows opinion. Actual numbers should be supplied.  Lets allow the reader to make up his or her own mind how big or not so big it was.
Let’s tighten this up boys!
-mccommas
:You want other references: here is what I found when I googled "Linda Chavez Barbara Mikulski". , , . There are more. I did not want to spend the time inspecting them. Take any one of them and transfer them to the article if you wish. --Asbl 05:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cruella DeVil a gay basher now?

message: Linda Chavez was never hired by Bonnie Erbé, so she cannot have quit the show. She may have left the show, but that is another matter. I have removed this until this can be straightened out and described accurately. Also, Erbé herself might well be worthy of an article. Danny 18:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the contradiction? Chavez quit the PBS show. Presumably, PBS hired her. --Asbl 15:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bonnie Erbé]] incident

message: the current wording in this article is as follows:
:Chavez was accused of making Mikulski's sexual orientation a central issue of the campaign by the Washington Post, who misquoted Chavez's claim that Mikulski was a "San Francisco-style George McGovern liberal." The Washington Post, as it turned out, hadn't realized the line was a play on Jeanne Kirkpatrick's 1984 Republican Convention speech and instead the Post believed Chavez was implying Mikulski was a homosexual.
compare this with the current wording on the same event over at  Barbara Mikulski
:During the campaign, her opponent, Linda Chavez, made Mikulski's sexual orientation and her relationship with one of her staffers a central issue of the campaign.
These are very different descriptions of the same events, one says Chavez simply made a misinterpreted statement the other says that she actively and deliberately pursued a particular campaign strategy.
Please fix this!
--Xorkl000 13:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the one cite as it is to a blog and not a genuine news source. Obviously the Wash. Post article has to be cited. Mangoe (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: contradicts [[Barbara Mikulski]]

message: The page needs an entry describing Chavez' radio show experiences; how she started, what the public reaction is, etc. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Radio show

message: Sorry about the deletion I made to this section: I was editing too quickly and assumed that the second paragraph was simply an earlier version of the first paragraph. I think the two paragraphs that discuss salaries pulled by the Chavez family members from the various PACs should be rewritten into one paragraph. The two paragraphs bounce between years; they don't flow neatly in chron order. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've revised the section to try to make it clearer that the family got income from two different sources - PACs and non-profit foundations. To that end, I've also retitled it. Please feel free to reword it further for clarity, but I do think that the two separate paragraphs should stay separate.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 21:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Looks good. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Action Committees

message: Somebody keeps deleting the paragraph about Chavez being named to the Bruin Alumni Association. It's cited, it's online. Why remove it? If Chavez isn't active in the association, cite something along those lines. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bruin Alumni Association

message: Out of curiosity, does anyone know if the line in the intro paragraph describing her as the highest-ranking woman in Reagan's White House is meant to convey just the administration/offices of the White House itself, correct?  Not the entire Administration?  Even if it does- and I am assuming that it does- it should probably be re-worded to avoid that possible confusion.The Original Historygeek (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Highest ranking woman

message: I removed conservative from the lead. It seems that we are trying to avoid these type of qualifiers in the leads of bios. Also, was this that huge a Bush controversy that it needs the category. I left it in for now. Also, I appreciate the ethnicity being moved down in the bio, but this is actually one of those rare cases where it is related to her notability. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead and categories

message: I just looked at the website of PBS's "To The Contrary" with Bonnie Erbe, and Linda Chavez is listed as a panelist.  A quick look at past programs on the website shows LC appeared on the show 5 or 6 times in 2008 and almost as many times this year.  So, the vandalism that was just reversed is not all vandalism.  It appears that LC is once again a regular panelist on the show.   Kenatipo (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Linda Chavez back on "To the Contrary" with Bonnie Erbe

message: Someone persists in wanting to add to this article the assertion that Marta Mercado is no longer an illegal alien but a U.S. citizen. If this article were about Marta Mercado, it would be relevant. But it isn't: this article is about Linda Chavez, and the only thing that's relevant is that Mercado was an illegal alien at the time that she lived in Chavez's house and received money from her. Anything that's happened to Mercado since then has no bearing on Chavez's biography and so doesn't belong in this article. +Angr 15:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree. At least if it's relevant I'd like some explanation as to why it is thought to be so. Mangoe (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, the fact the she housed an illegal alien may have derailed her nomination to be Secretary of Labor. There's no guarantee she would have been appointed even if the scandal hadn't occurred. But even so, the fact that Mercado later became a citizen didn't change anything, so it had no effect on Linda Chavez's life. The statement about McDougall is relevant because it shows the completion of work that Chavez had begun, and of course her family's finances have a bearing on her life as well. +Angr 08:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The no-longer-illegal alien

message: <<In 1986, Chavez ran as a Republican for the United States Senate against Democrat Barbara Mikulski in the state of Maryland. It was the first time in modern U.S. history that two women faced each other in a U.S. Senate general election.>>
Not true. In 1960 in Maine, Republican incumbent Margaret Chase Smith faced (and defeated) Democrat Lucia M. Cormier. I'm pretty sure 1960 is well within the commonly accepted parameters of "modern U.S. history"--and anyway, the U.S. Senate has only been elected by popular vote since the adoption of the 17th Amendment in 1913. Rontrigger (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Not the first woman-vs.-woman Senate general election

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Linda Chavez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628090433/http://puertorico-herald.org/issues/2001/vol5n02/NYTChavez-en.html to http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/2001/vol5n02/NYTChavez-en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414125233/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200006/ai_n8917159 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200006/ai_n8917159
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012082201/http://www.teenpregnancy.org//works/pdf/PlayingCatchUp.pdf to http://teenpregnancy.org/works/pdf/PlayingCatchUp.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080225014722/http://www.bruinalumni.com/advisoryboard/chavez.html to http://www.bruinalumni.com/advisoryboard/chavez.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Linda Chavez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930015541/http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=article_detail&id=2778&CFID=2042066&CFTOKEN=39393101 to http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=article_detail&id=2778&CFID=2042066&CFTOKEN=39393101
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified