Talk:Elaine Chao/Archive 1

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

Untitled

  • Content: Redirect

Elaine L. Chao

--Menchi 09:34 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The L Word

I don't think people take note of the "L." much. This page should be moved to Elaine Chao. --Jiang 08:57 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sometimes the middle name is consistently used by the person and the public, like Pearl S. Buck, despite the fact that there's no other well-known person by the same name (hence not a specifier). But "Elaine Cho" seems to be equally common. Although I had never heard of her, despite being a Taiwanese as well, until I read about her in WP here. So I can't account for the popularity over a long term of time in the press. --Menchi 09:05 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I did a google news search. "Elaine Chao" turned out 756 results. "Elaine L. Chao" turned out 73. The white house site does not have the "L." listed: [1] I guess a move is to be made. --Jiang 09:14 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ok, done. For the record, the redirect's history was:
17:16 11 Jun 2003 . . User:Jiang (

Middle name L.

The dot uses "Lan": [2]. --Jiang | Talk 08:37, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Great. I've trimmed the article accordingly. --Menchi (Talk)â 09:26, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm more interested why her last name isn't McConnell.She wasn't a famous person when she married Mitch, so there doesn't seem to be a reason. Someone should look up, and put in references.

Merge

"Chao was the first Asian American to serve as director of the Peace Corps. She expanded Peace Corps' presence in Eastern Europe and Central Asia by establishing the first Peace Corps programs in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and other newly independent countries."

Done. 64.229.39.247 19:47, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rating

I rated this a B in the Biography project. Clearly, there is significant expansion that can take place in this important member of the administration. Edit wars will not help to upgrate this article, so please come to a consensus in the talk pages rather than engage in needless edit wars. ludahai 魯大海 10:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"longest serving"

The intro says: Chao is the President's only original cabinet member, making her the longest serving cabinet member during President Bush's administration.

What about John P. Walters? Or being Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy doesn't qualify as being as "cabinet member"? Illuminate me. ☆ CieloEstrellado 14:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct; he's officially not a member of the cabinet, but holds a cabinet-level position. ¶ EqualRights (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, but confusing. ☆ CieloEstrellado 17:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I think that that the last three paragraphs of the accomplishments section do not belong in this article, and seem to not mention Chao. Am I right? Killamator (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Honorary degrees

I removed this from the "childhood and education" section because it has nothing to do with either: "She is the recipient of 31 honorary doctoral degrees from colleges and universities around the world."

That factoid would better fit in a section on honors received, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.63.58 (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

--- This edit appears to have caused the strange wording of her being in kindergarten, and then immediately in high school. I had to read that a couple of times to see if she was a genius or not.

Supposed controversy

As the basis of a supposed controversy, this article sights a Washington Post article that is more opinion piece that factual reporting. The Washington Post article is a clearly biased report that headlines the Department of Labor "Mislead" Congress. However, that actual GAO report cited never uses that word in the entire report. The report (found at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0914.pdf) made four recommendations for improving the accuracy of cost estimates. However, no where did the report alledge or even suggest that there was an intent to mislead. Having a GAO report result in recommendations for improvements certainly does not constitute a "controversy." Moreover, the entire competitive sourcing initiative was imposed by OMB, and DOL simply sought to comply with mandates placed upon the organization by the White House.

Similarly, the second sentence claims a report by the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform alleged that Chao and other White House officials campaigned for Republican candidates at taxpayer expense, a Hatch Act violation. However, the citation for this claim references a dead URL link.

The first sentence should be removed, as there is no sound basis for it, and it references a biased point of view (Washington Post) rather than the source document from GAO. The second sentence should be removed unless a valid reference can be provided.

Businessdr (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Businessdr

I've fixed the link, but note that factual information may not be removed solely because a URL has become unavailable, per WP:DEADLINK. The Wikipedia article states that only that "During Chao's tenure, Labor Department gave Congress inaccurate and unreliable numbers that understated the expense of contracting out its employees' work to private firms", which is correct according to both the primary and secondary source. I'd say the main issue here is the existence of a Controversy section, which I've removed per WP:CSECTION. —AV3000 (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
In lieu of a Controversy subsection, I've added a Criticism subheading. This appears to be OK by WP:CSECTION since the critical material (recently expanded significantly) now is much greater than the rest of the body of the section. [From the policy: "In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material."] It would seem that we now need to address each issue in this subsection, describing it in NPOV terms, and when appropriate adding criticisms and counter criticisms.Frappyjohn (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Early years on Fox News

In a recent interview on Fox News, they stated the following fact: "When she came to this country [the U.S.] she could not speak English [they gave some examples of the ridicule she suffered at the hands of the other students]. Four years later she was voted class president." If anyone can figure out what class presidency one can serve in at the age of 12... or get more correct facts on this... I think it nicely illustrates how she has a history of not only overcoming adversity but excelling in her endeavors. –DeweyQ 17:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

7th grade class of grade school?Robinrobin (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Criticism

A lot of people in the labor movement are very critical of Chao and there is no mention of it on the page. In fact the page only cites achievements. There should be at least some note of the dissent. For example, AFGE local 12 has posted in their newsletters a number of anti-worker comments and initiatives that she has put forward, most recently a bid to privatize government employee jobs without any proof of justification, such as cost savings. Bashthefashagain (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think now this article does the exact opposite, and is biased against the figure's tenure by mostly listing the criticisms of her role in the Bush Cabinet and barely mentions her accomplishments. This predominantly occurs in the "Labor Secretary" subheading of the "Career" section, wherein the vast majority of the content is devoted to describing the myriad of controversies and criticisms of her long tenure heading the U.S. Labor Department while providing relative little discussion of her notable achievements while in office. While this section has only two paragraphs that discuss her achievements or are indifferent to her role as Labor Secretary, there are five which are decidedly critical. Although her alleged missteps and the criticisms of her performance do constitute valid pieces of information and should be discussed, her notable achievements deserve to be equally articulated. Illustrative of some of the notable achievements which are absent from this discussion include her lauded involvement in crafting and bringing about the Pension Protection Act of 2006 and critical regulatory changes to the Family and Medical Leave Act. [1] A perfect example of the negative bias is the portion which discusses the amount of jobs created during her time in the position relative to those under Presidents Barrack Obama and Bill Clinton. This information, it would seem, is quite irrelevant and only found there in order to criticize and shed a negative light on Ms. Chao. I believe this to be the case because there was not a sole Secretary of Labor serving the full length of the Clinton Administration or that of the Obama Administration thus far like there was throughout all eight years of President George W. Bush's term in office, making such a statistic not only biased and misleading, but also irrelevant. Mrzubrow (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Concur. Editors have changed the usual "Controversy" section (which is discouraged, except for conservatives and Republicans) to "Criticism and praise" and made it about half the article. I get it. Y'all hate her, but this is hardly encyclopedic. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/chao.htm

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Elaine Chao. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 01:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Elaine Chao. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 20:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

John Donne (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)The reference to Amy Chua's book requires expansion. Amy Chua's book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, is about Tiger Mother's and not "tiger wives". The earliest reference to a "tiger wife" is from a Daily Express article published the same year as Chua's book (2011) and refers to Wendi Deng Murdoch physically defending her husband, Rupert Murdoch, when a protester hit him with a shaving-foam custard pie while he was being questioned by a British parliamentary select committee. The complete article may be found at this link which should be referenced in the Wikipedia article: http://www.express.co.uk/expressyourself/260129/Wrath-of-the-Tiger-Wife John Donne (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Home residence

I can assume that since Chao votes in Kentucky and McConnell's residence is in Louisville, that Chao's residence is the same, in Louisville. Is there any particular reason this isn't mentioned in the article, outside of the difficulty of finding reliable sources? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

She is definitely a resident of Kentucky, as Sen. McConnell said when she was introduced at her hearing, she is only the second person from Kentucky nominated to the cabinet from Kentucky since WWII. The first? Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao of the GW Bush administration. I think one can reasonable infer that her residence is the same as her husband's, despite the lack of reference. --rogerd (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The Washington Post says: "Chao lives in Washington most of the time — so does McConnell — but Kentucky is her official residence." Marquardtika (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all for responses. I would like to see her categorized in Category:Politicians from Louisville, Kentucky but I need an RS that says she is not just from Kentucky, but explicitly the city of Louisville like her husband. It seems like it can be inferred, but I can't find any direct statements of such. I want to avoid WP:SYNTH. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see the dilemma. It is surprisingly hard to find a source connecting her to Louisville. I wouldn't object to you adding the Louisville category, though, because I don't think it's controversial. Marquardtika (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Taiwanese?

It is POV to list Elaine Chao as Taiwanese because that is contrary to self and popular identification. see official biography and other links. In contrast this search shows none of the first couple pages (other than wikipedia and clones) identifying Elaine Chao as "Taiwanese". The label "Chinese American" is not controversial here; the label "Taiwanese American" is. Before the Taiwanese localization movement in the 1990s, almost no mainlanders identified themselves as Taiwanese, and their passports, ID cards, military draft documents, etc. were labelled with their ancestral provinces in mainland China. Are we supposed to say that John McCain is Panamanian American too? --Jiang 20:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The official biography from the U.S. Department of Labor makes no mention of Elaine Chao being either Chinese or Taiwanese. The most NPOV move would be to remove the “Chinese American” label and not replace it with any other controversial labels. =D Jumping cheese Contact 23:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What is so POV about the label "Chinese American"? I just don't see who would be objecting. Verifiability is not an issue here.

Here she calls herself a Chinese American: SECRETARY CHAO: "Well, as a Chinese American, as an American of Chinese descent, I have, perhaps, a special view about the competitiveness in a situation..." --Jiang 03:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice research! Chao sounds a little repetitive when she says "as a Chinese American, as an American of Chinese descent" (hehehe, funny). Regardless, the article doesn’t loose anything when it’s missing reference to the Chinese or Taiwanese issue. =D Jumping cheese Contact 04:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It is verifiable and undisputed that she is Chinese American, so the article should say so. Perhaps a more thorough explanation of her background is also in order: [3] --Jiang 06:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Montie5 20:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)She's definitely Chinese American or American Chinese. Chinese here means her ethnicity. The majority of people in Taiwan are of Chinese ethnicity. Nothing controversial about it.

Biographies do not go by ethnicities (a person from Canada is called Canadian, not Métis if he or she was an ethnic Métis). I believe that the article should omit the controversial Chinese or Taiwanese label altogether, but if Chao identifies herself as “Chinese”, the article should include it (although the article should mention that Chao explicitly identifies herself as Chinese to avoid any POV issues). That should settle almost all issues. =D Jumping cheese Contact 01:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe biographies should contain their ethnic identity. A lot of biographies do: from KT Tunstall to Brad Pitt, from Tiger Woods to Keanu Reeves. -- Montie5 09:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Condoleeza Rice is noted as African American, but he does not come from Africa- she comes from Alabama. I don't see the POV: just who is claiming that Elaine Chao is not Chinese American? Who is countering her claim that she is? --Jiang 03:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Rice is "African-American" because that is the politically correct term. The term "Caucasian" or "Asian-American" are used to denote race, not ethnicity. =) Jumping cheese Contact 20:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
And ethnicity denotes race. Montie5 16:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't really follow the logic. Ethnicity denoting race does what? Sorry if I sound frustrated. Jumping cheese Contact 20:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a compromise that should be acceptable by both parties. The article should state that Chao is Chinese, but also include that Chao has explicitly identified herself as Chinese. Thus, the article will not be taking any potential political stand. Does that sound acceptable? Please say yes! =D Jumping cheese Contact 03:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I accept a footnote following the first mention of "Chinese American" linking to the above transcript.--Jiang 05:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
How about moving the "Chinese American" with footnote down to the Childhood and education section. Chao is the first Asian-American in the federal cabinet, not specifically the first "Chinese-American". I'm going to go ahead and make the changes. If any Wikipedian has a serious problem with the changes, feel free to change them back (but please explain why). =D Jumping cheese Contact 04:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Bonafide.hustla's revert deleted legitimate content unrelated to the dispute. Norman Mineta was the first Asian American in the cabinet (when he was Laborcommerce secretary by Clinton). Elaine Chao is the second Asian American. Saying that she merely "describes herself" as Chinese American (instead of an outright statement of fact as is done for others) makes it seem that her status as a Chinese American is in dispute. Except here and by Bonafide.hustla, it is not. Hers is a clear case on whether the label should apply. On the contrary, is there anyone referring to her as a Taiwanese American?--Jiang 05:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Chao's ststus is in dispute "here" should be sufficient to question the label. Chao is not the first Chinese-American to serve on the federal cabinet, but the very first Asian-American (much more significant than simply the first "Chinese-American"). Thus, I do not agree with placing the label in the intro section. I'm allright with the rest of the edits. =D Jumping cheese Contact 22:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself and be repetitive in my comments because this isn't getting through: Chao is the first Chinese American to serve on the federal cabinet. Chao is not the first Asian American to serve on the federal cabinet. Norman Mineta is the first Asian American to serve on the federal cabinet. Norman Mineta was appointed to the cabinet as Secretary of Commerce in 2000 and as Secretary of Transportation in 2001. Chao was appointed to the cabinet as Secretary of Labor in 2001 and previously held no cabinet post prior to that appointment. As such, Chao is the first Chinese American and second Asian American to serve in the federal cabinet.

In the spririt of WP:NOR, a dispute here is not sufficient to question the label. If I go to Talk:George W. Bush claiming that the notion that Bush is a devout Christian can be countered by the fact that Bush is 666, then does that mean we should say "Bush describes himself as a born-again Christian" instead of "Bush is a born-again Christian"? If we tried to accomodate all the misguided and misinformed in the world, the Wikipedia would be full of weasel words.

Now, is there anything to suggest that Chao's status as a Chinese American is in dispute? --Jiang 01:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a whole mess of research! Sorry about that, I didn't know that Chao was the first Chinese-American to hold a federal cabinet. =) Jumping cheese Contact 01:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I have changed "Taiwanese American" to "Chinese American." Within Taiwan, Taiwanese are the majority, aboriginal ethnic group that speaks a different language from Mandarin Chinese and is also historically and even genetically different from Mainland Chinese who immigrated to the island after 1949. Elaine Chao's family is definitely not Taiwanese but from the Mainland. It is misleading to call her Taiwanese and I have not found any source where she calls herself that. She always says she is Chinese American. The article makes it clear that she lived in Taiwan as a child so this should not be a problem.Evangeline (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

There's a reverting war going on. Please follow the 3 reverts guideline. Settle the issue on the talk page and find a compromise. =D Jumping cheese Contact 04:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A violation of NPOV. Please see Talk: David Wu--Bonafide.hustla 03:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand, but Wikipedians have to come to a compromise to prevent revert wars. =) Jumping cheese Contact 04:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about content rather than compromise. Unfortunately, this example of compromising results in incoorect, POV info on this biography. Self identification is not valid encyclopedia info. Bobby Fischer identifies himself as not Jewish yet his name appear on the List of Jews. There is a double standard existing here. I am not gonna involve myself in a revert war right now but if we can't come up with a better solution, I'm afraid some necessary steps must be taken.--Bonafide.hustla 04:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy is for biographies. However, if other Wikipedians have no problems with Chao identifying herself as Chinese-American, I guess it's safe to keep it in the page. =) Jumping cheese Contact 05:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs) is the only one having problems with Chao identifying herself as Chinese-American (which is clearly cited). Bonafide.hustla is clearly POV pushing on this and other articles. He is trying to have a revert war over a non-issue here. RevolverOcelotX

Since no one will get to the point in the discussion above, I will. She is Taiwanese to avoid confusion that she is from communist China. The country broke away from China some time ago, and the only one that cares enough that an accurate description of her family being from Tawain is tin footed communists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:A552:8200:E4FE:1E72:DED8:411D (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elaine Chao. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Elaine Chao. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elaine Chao. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

DOT spam

An editor keeps adding an enormous batch of content that is near-exclusively sourced to the DOT. This does not belong in this article.[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably vandalism - copying entire paragraphs from Department of Transportation press releases. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans On second thought, after the latest round of posts by AndyBean, it looks like interested parties editing the official Elain Chao press release section. I've skimmed one of the secondary sources the editor added ([1]) but without acknowledging its content in the article which is still the original DoT/Chao speak.

References

  1. ^ "Driverless cars on public highways? Go for it, Trump administration says". Los Angeles Times. September 12, 2017. Retrieved June 10, 2019.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This article has serious COI problems

I have highlighted these problems on the COI noticeboard here[5] and here[6]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

FarleyFoo is a candidate, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elaine_Chao&oldid=841425126. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
COI or not, a lot of recent edits by the SPA AndyBean8 look quite problematic in themselves. I just examined one them more closely [7] and noticed two huge problems already after checking just one the many added citations:
  • The edit summary is highly deceptive, hiding the removal of two well-sourced paragraphs (as also just pointed out by Space4Time3Continuum2x).
  • The edit removed "citation needed" tags from the following two sentences, adding a secondary source instead [8]:
    • "It was released on October 10, 2018."
    • "Chao stated that AV 3.0 would: 'include various surface transportation systems, such as mass transit, rail, and trucking. And will again highlight the need for AVs to operate safely in proximity to bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as other vehicles'."
But the new source support neither statement: It does not contains that quote, and was in fact published before that release date, on October 4.
Space4Time3Continuum2x has already reverted part of this edit. I'm going to revert the rest of AndyBean8's recent edits too until different editors (preferably without a track record of deceptive edit summaries and citations that don't check out) have had a chance to vet them.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
PS: The entire section "policy initiatives" section that another SPA (DoveBar) had added here likewise contained citations that do not support the corresponding statement:
"As of May, 2019 there were 1.4 million registered drones in the U.S. and more than 136,000 registered drone operators — nearly triple the number in 2017." - the cited ref is from January 2018.
And that's not even talking about the huge WP:SYNTH problem of including such a statement in this biographical article in the first place - it insinuates that this rise in the number of drones was entirely or partly due to Chao's actions.
Snooganssnoogans just removed the entire section for now, which seems a reasonable course of action to me, given what are at the very least serious sourcing problems, but possible also evidence for a pattern of systematic deception in order to achieve PR goals.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • And another postcript: On May 15, 2018, at 02:43 PM EDT (18:43 UTC), CNBC reported that Chao’s brother-in-law had been nominated by Trump to head the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, a Labor Department agency. 45 minutes later the three currently blocked accounts Farleyfoo, Megrei, and Beaniacs began busily adding 13,000 bytes of presumed PR to the Transportation section. Coincidence or Tuesday in the swamp - I was curious about what could have prompted the sudden burst of activity from 19:26 to 20:05 UTC on a Tuesday in May. Couldn’t have been the cites dated on or close to May 15; there was only one, this riveting blog post on drones that wasn’t published until 03:47 PM (19:47 UTC if EDT, 20:47 UTC if CDT), and it wasn’t added to the article until the next day. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Mining Regulation

It would be good if the section on mining regulation mentioned her role in the investigation of the 2000 Martin County coal slurry spill.

"Before the Blankenship-McConnell Feud, the Senator Aided the Mining Executive". --Tsbertalan (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Tsbertalan Thanks for pointing that out. The Martin County Massey coal sludge spill in 2000 (biggest in volume ever) and Bush administration cover-up didn't make it into McConnell's Wikipedia article either. They fired the whistle-blower and declared it a non-event, 2-cent fine for every 1000 gallons spilled. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

(Photo) shop till you drop

So - which one is the official one, this one: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/secretary-chao.jpg (= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elaine_Chao_official_photo.jpg, 29 August 2017 version), or the S1-revised-photo: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/S1-revised-photo-03-01-2019.jpg (= https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elaine_Chao_official_portrait_2.jpg)? "They’ve brightened it up a little bit" - and then some: Same clothes, same exact hairdo, same exact folds on Stars and Stripes but gone are lines under right eye, pouch under left one, several lines from throat, and some stray hairs sticking out on left side, as well as the DoT banner which is now coyly peeking out from behind Stars and Stripes. (Fondly remembering another member of the Trump administration!) The banner is what made me look twice because the unrevised altered version is still linked elsewhere on Wikipedia. How often do they produce new official portraits, anyway (because there's also this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elaine_Chao_official_portrait.jpg)? Note to Trump administration: You're not fooling anyone. We know what you look like now and unrevised, on account of those people with cameras following you around. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't figure out how to upload the unaltered version without overwriting the current altered one. The url will open it in the browser. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Elaine Chao Wife of Mitch McConnell

Upon doing a google search, it states Chao is the first wife of McConnell. That is not true. Sherrill Redmon was his first wife. I don't know if that is a google problem or a wiki problem. Again, this is stated as you google Mitch McConnel's wife. An edit may be in order.

Israel Yzaguirre usaeagle6@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usaeagle6 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

If a Google search said that, it is incorrect. My own search [9] found her referred to as his "wife" but not "first wife". In fact Chao is his second wife, as the article Mitch McConnell makes clear. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Undue weight

I have tagged the section on Chao's tenure as Secretary of Transportation with the "undue weight" tag. The section states that Chao was nominated and confirmed. Otherwise, it consists only of a subsection on controversies and a subsection on potential conflicts of interest. Thus, it is completely missing any general information about what she has done during her nearly three years at the helm of DoT. This is glaringly unbalanced and unencyclopedic. SunCrow (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The content you removed explained the nature of the conflicts of interest.[10] It should be restored ASAP. The content in question is not only very well-sourced to detailed investigative pieces from several RS, but is the subject of a House Oversight committee investigation. As for other content on the page, there is no one who has objected to adding RS content about other aspects of her tenure, and it has no relation to whether RS content on one aspect of her tenure should be scrubbed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, the content I removed consisted of unnecessary detail. The remaining content explains quite clearly what the alleged conflicts of interest are. Nothing has been "scrubbed". The fact that there is absolutely nothing in the article about Chao's tenure as Secretary of Transportation other than a section on controversy and another section on potential conflicts of interest (which had been misleadingly labeled "conflicts of interest" until I edited the section name; since there has been no finding of wrongdoing on Chao's part as yet, that section heading was premature, inaccurate, and POV) makes it wildly unbalanced and inappropriate to include minute detail about allegations and insinuations of wrongdoing. I stand by my edits. A case could be made that some of the remaining material violates WP:UNDUE and should be removed. SunCrow (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Suncrow: I removed the tag. it is completely missing any general information about what she has done during her nearly three years at the helm of DoT. Instead of tagging the section, you could have added whatever information you claim is missing. I just ran a search to see what I personally may have missed, and all I've come up with is what's in the section now, i.e., controversies and conflicts of interest or, rather, potential conflicts of interest, as you've already renamed the title. No news on Trump's American Infrastructure Initiative, for example, except for those projects in Kentucky (see conflicts of interest). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x, the tag needs to stay until the problem--which I clearly identified--is solved. I haven't claimed that any particular information is missing. Rather, I have accurately pointed out that there is no information whatsoever about Chao's tenure as Secretary of Transportation except controversies and alleged conflicts of interest. Your search must not have been very comprehensive. I ran a quick one and found plenty of material that could be added, such as:

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/initiative-to-aid-rural-areas-announced-here-by-u-s/article_d58c8e97-0f22-5fdb-83d2-fca086d312b7.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/driving-a-rules-revolution-11575676791

https://www.theoaklandpress.com/news/local/trump-michigan-legislature-launching-initiatives-to-fight-human-trafficking/article_b3f177bc-4a81-11ea-955a-e71108c45038.html

https://www.ttnews.com/articles/chao-calls-industry-commitment-combat-human-trafficking

https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/transportation/2020/02/27/u-s-secretary-transportation-elaine-chao-cable-racking-gateway-tunnel-amtrak/4857108002/

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/dot-reassures-congress-on-covid-19-response

https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2020/02/27/talk-turns-to-rehabbing-existing-hudson-tunnel-as-momentum-for-a-new-one-wanes-1263999

SunCrow (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there even one source mentioning things the DoT under Chao has actually done, other than Chao being "criticized for holding up the $30 billion project" to build another Hudson River tunnel (northjersey.com and Politico)? Since you are convinced that that is the case, why don't you add that material to the text with the RS supporting it? Otherwise please remove the tag. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I could add material to the article, you could add material to the article, the editors who made this section of the article unbalanced in the first place could add to the article, and anyone else with internet access could add to the article. Regardless, the section is currently unbalanced, and the tag needs to stay until the problem is solved. SunCrow (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll do it! Aintnopoblano (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

User SunCrow was "blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing as a normal admin action" on March 22, 2020. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

COI account proposals

Wikipedianpolitico tried and failed. I do think this banner should stay up. To Snooganssnoogans point, "department does what her department is supposed to to" is correct but isn't that what we've called for here? I don't think we need a separate COVID-19 thread because what might be better is a section of what this Secretary of Transportation's function or priorities are, something general after the bit about her being confirmed by trump?Aintnopoblano (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing notable about her department undertaking the kinds of tasks that her department would always do, regardless of whether she was there or not. If there are RS about initiatives that she is pushing/oppising or where she is shaping policy, then yes, that would be DUE. But simply saying she was at a hearing, and that her department does what her department is supposed to do is not interesting in the slightest. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans I'm about to add a couple things but wanted to put a couple items out there. NETT Council and FAA have the best RS compared to other topics I could think of. I cited speeches and press releases a couple times but for the record, I don't think this should be a habit unless accompanied by a better RS. Yes a speech is public record, she said it, but I don't necessarily think they should be considered RS, correct? Also, Space4Time3Continuum2x I could use some help revising and adding to this if you see fit. Hard to imagine a section on FAA without some reference to Boeing, right?
NETT Council and FAA are primary sources. Unless their press releases, Chao's speeches at events, etc., were covered by reliable secondary press releases they're PR and don't belong in WP. Except for one sentence, the entire paragraph you added consists of "Chao announced," "Chao stated," "Chao was involved in," and 90 percent of the sources are DoT press releases. Are you her press secretary, Aintnopoblano? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm about to hit publish and with it will remove the undue weight banner. Let me know your thoughts!Aintnopoblano (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans I was wondering about your latest change. I don't completely disagree. Are things like "so and so praised Chao for..." what you mean by the COI text? I was hoping to set the stage for other folks to contribute which is why I liked breaking it up into two sections. I think drone and innovation stuff is cool but I think there does need to be some content on the other side of some of these issues. Would it help to put those sections back and put the banner back up so people know to weigh in? Not trying to start an edit battle but could use some guidance. the drone stuff and the nett council i felt were specific enough that they weren't just "department doing what it should." thoughts?Aintnopoblano (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to workshop text with an account that is very likely paid to add text to paint the subject in a more positive light. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Can someone fix the archiving?

There are 13 yr old discussions here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The bot went a little overboard and archived two discussions that are less than a year old. Since the problem (i.e., unfiltered DoT PR being added to the article) persists, they should be unarchived IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Could someone please unarchive these two discussions?. -- Space4Time3Continuum2x (Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Dartmouth College

She literally didn't get a degree from Dartmouth. The sources that mention Dartmouth (like [1],[2]) mention she "studied at M.I.T., Dartmouth College, and Columbia University" along with the 28 honorary degrees she got. It's not reasonable to include all 33 schools she has a tenuous connection to in the lede. Dosafrog (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The sentence doesn't say that she received a degree from Dartmouth, it says that she attended it. The sources are clear that she did so I'm not sure why you think this is a problem. If you believe that the lede should only include institutions from which this person received a (non-honorary) degree, please edit it so that is clear.
In any case, this is certainly not something that you should be edit warring to remove. You've been asked a few times to stop edit warring; I strongly recommend you take that advice to heart or you may end up being blocked at some point. ElKevbo (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
??? You're the one harassing me by reverting all of my edits. I literally explained my reasoning. The onus is on you to think before you hound. Have a nice day! Dosafrog (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Address the topic at hand. The sentence said that she studied at Dartmouth; the sources are explicit in supporting that claim so why should we not include it?
You don't own this article despite your edit-warring to impose your edit. This material has been in the article without controversy for a few months so the onus is on you to establish that the consensus has changed or been misunderstood. ElKevbo (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
She didn't get a degree from Dartmouth. Not that hard to grasp.
Um chile I think you're a bit confused as to who is the one acting like they "own" this article. Anyways, I'm not the one harassing other users, hounding them, reverting all their edits, and issuing spurious edit warring notices just because of their personal misunderstandings. I hope you have a blessed day. Dosafrog (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
The sentence doesn't say "got a degree from" and it doesn't say "graduated from." It says "attended." She attended Dartmouth. Why do you believe that university shouldn't be included with the others that are included in that sentence?
And drop the personal attacks. Take it to WP:ANI if you think there is a real problem otherwise focus on the article. ElKevbo (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
She graduated from only two institutions. Dartmouth has the same tenuous connection to her as thirty other schools. You're out here advocating for the lede to just be a list of schools she went to? Okay,,, Make it make sense.
"Drop the personal attacks." The way that the very person who started the personal attacks is out here saying that. I'll let you think about that one. Dosafrog (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox citizenship

The final section of the infobox lists her citizenship as "United States (1934-present)" - am I missing something, or is this a mistake, since she was born after 1934? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:0:6950:6041:967D:AAB4:D92F (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Reverted. -- Pemilligan (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this a BLP violation? A slur?

Is this an unverified slur?:

"Bloch described Chao as a "tiger wife", a reference to Amy Chua's 2011 book about her disciplinarian parenting style.[3]" And BTW, does Chao have children?(FairNPOV (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC))

Is this statement based on a reliable source?

Article says, "In April 2008, Chao's father gave Chao and McConnell between $5 million and $25 million,[93]". If the source has accurate information, why the huge range for the gift, 5-25 million? If the source had accurate information, why doesn't it specify the gift range more closely? (FairNPOV (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC))

The source is given as
Fang, Lee (2014-10-30). "Mitch McConnell's Freighted Ties to a Shadowy Shipping Company". The Nation. ISSN 0027-8378. Retrieved 2018-02-07.
In Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources (aka WP:RSPSOURCES) The Nation is rated as generally reliable, the highest rating used there, so, yes, the statement is based on a reliable source.
The reason for giving a range is explained in the cited article, which reads, "Senate ethics forms require personal finance disclosures in ranges of amounts, rather than specific figures".
In the future, you may want to check the cited source and answer your own question. -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Does this obtuse sentence need revision?

Article says, "In 2012, the Chao family donated $40 million to Harvard Business School for scholarships for students of Chinese heritage and the Ruth Mulan Chu Chao Center,".

How could the Ruth Mulan Chu Chao center receive a scholarship? Was a scholarship actually given for a Center? (FairNPOV (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC))

It was poor grammar. I've changed the second "for" to "to", added a comma, and added another "for" in an attempt to make it more clear:
In 2012 the Chao family donated $40 million to Harvard Business School for scholarships to students of Chinese heritage, and for the Ruth Mulan Chu Chao Center, ...
Does that resolve the issue? -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Is Elaine Chao a politician?

Article says, "an American politician." Does she habitually serve in elected positions? How many times has she been elected to office? Would she be more accurately called a bureaucrat? Is there a more polite term for bureaucrat? (FairNPOV (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC))

By my count, she's held political appointments for 16 1/2 of the past 32 1/2 years. In my opinion, that's a politician. -- Pemilligan (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Update entry to reflect resignation

Ms. Chao has resigned her position. I think the article should reflect this, and link to things like her resignation letter and the context around it. I'm happy to make some minor edits to this effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dleonhardt (talk • contribs) 11:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tartan357: Re [11]: Chao gave notice effective January 11. Doesn't that mean that she was in office until January 10? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, hmm, I didn't think about that. If she didn't provide a time of day, then I suppose it's ambiguous. ― Tartan357 Talk 12:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Probably doesn't make one iota of difference one way or the other. DoT hasn't updated their webpage, still lists Chao as Secretary and Bradbury as Deputy. We'll see whether they'll bother before January 20. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x, agreed—I don't mind you changing it back to the 10th if you want to. ― Tartan357 Talk 13:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Chao's resignation

CitizenKang414, Just because something was mentioned in the news 5 days ago doesn’t mean it’s leadworthy, as your edit summary stated. "The Hill," too, didn’t say that she resigned in protest, the article said that "a source with knowledge of her decision" said that she "will resign in protest." None of the sources say that in their own voice, and the letter to her staffers doesn’t mention a protest against Trump or any of his actions, either. The sources pretty much say "too little, too late" and that she may want to avoid possibly having to vote on a 25th amendment removal procedure. "The Hill"'s follow-up article on January 8 states that she "cited the Capitol riots as her reason for leaving" and that In her two-page resignation letter to Trump, which included just one sentence about the Capitol riots, she thanked the president for the opportunity to serve as Transportation secretary and highlighted the department’s accomplishments over the last four years. That's pretty much the opposite of resigning in protest. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

2020-2021 investigation

To add to article: information about the investigation into Chao's possible misuse of staff (for personal tasks unrelated to her cabinet role), the news of which was released to the public on March 4, 2021. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest adding more information from the report, which was that her trip to China was to assist with her and father's company's financial relationship with the Chinese government. 173.79.160.245 (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Government confirms that Chao had her staff edit Wikipedia in violation of COI guidelines and the WMF Terms of Use

For reference, the investigation mentioned above, by the Transportation Department’s inspector general, has been covered in e.g. this New York Times article.

Given the history of this Wikipedia article, the following passage from the report is of particular interest (my bolding):

OIG also found that, on January 6, 2018, the Secretary asked an OST staffer to edit her father’s Wikipedia page. In an interview with OIG in January 2020, the staffer confirmed that she edited the page and told OIG that they were the Secretary’s Wikipedia point person. When asked about writing speeches or editing content about the Secretary’s father, the OST staffer stated that the Secretary’s family story is often a part of her public speeches. The staffer did not feel that editing or speechwriting work that mentions Dr. Chao is outside the scope of DOT duties because much of the story about the life of the Secretary involves her father. According to the staffer, the family story is a narrative tool utilized as part of speechwriting.

This edit to the article James S. C. Chao from the same day is very likely related, but that's probably just the tip of the iceberg.

Importantly, the inspector general's report was concerned with whether Chao had diverted government resources (such as staff time) to supporting her family, rather than with any violations of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. But the fact that she had a dedicated "Wikipedia point person" among her staff supports the conclusion that several editors had arrived at in 2019 and 2020, namely that this article too has been the target of extensive undisclosed conflict-of-interest editing, which implies violations of the WP:COI project guidelines and the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. Beyond that, the suspected edits also involved various deceptive tactics such as confirmed sockpuppeting (several accounts were blocked), faked citations and misleading edit summaries. See e.g the 2019 thread on this talk page titled "This article has serious COI problems", with observations by Snooganssnoogans, Space4Time3Continuum2x and myself.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow! Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
So this wasn't just an ordinary member of the Department of Transportation fan club who copied material from the DoT "Briefing Room" website? Who knew? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC

References

  1. ^ "DOJ Declines Criminal Probe Into Former USDOT Secretary Despite New Damning Report". Transportation Nation. March 3, 2021. Retrieved April 3, 2021.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Close ties to the Chinese Communist Party

I have reverted an addition of this twice. The source cited the second time contains They run an American shipping company with deep ties to the economic and political elite in China, where most of the company’s business is centered. which I don't believe is sufficient for the prose added. There is also already significant detail on the shipping company and conflicts of interest in it's own section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Why did Elaine Chao quit the day after the Capitol Insurrection.

Did Mrs. McConnell have inside information about the Insurrection? Why did she resign a week early from her position as Secretary of Transportation? what is she doing now? 98.169.19.18 (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:TPG: The purpose of an article's talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. When talk pages in other namespaces and userspaces are used for discussion and communication between users, discussion should be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. General Ization Talk 01:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elaine_Chao/Archive_1&oldid=1222871698"