Talk:Andrew Maguire (whistleblower)

Hit and Run Accident
Does anyone know of an original source for the story on the hit and run in London? The only root sources appear to be articles from GATA (an organization with whom Maguire is personally affiliated) and an NYPost blurb that cites no sources whatsoever (presumably the source is the very same GATA article). This incident purportedly involved deploying helicopters, and yet there are ZERO articles from any publications in the UK? This seems highly suspicious, and quite probably that Maguire fabricated the event in whole or in part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.47.20 (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow - I see this article has been reverted to cover for this [redacted]. I guess I'll have to do some work on this later to get it back into reasonable form. Why does it still mention a hit and run accident that either (a) had absolutely nothing to do with his whistleblower status or (b) never happened in the first place. There is absolutely no evidence it ever happened, no articles anywhere in any press that aren't directly linked to Maguire himself. There was one opinion piece in the NY Times by William Cohen, but when I asked Cohen via email specifically about what evidence there was that the incident ever happened via, here is what he had to say:

''i don't know a whole lot either. i did speak with andrew mcguire a year or so ago and asked him about the accident. he confirmed that it happened but doubted it was an attempt on his life because of what he was telling the CFTC. that's all he said about it''

[Redacted], and given that no action has ever been taken on whatever 'evidence' he claimed to have had, he's at best simply irrelevant. He shouldn't have a wikipedia article, but if one is going to exist it needs to be devoid of any innuendo [redacted by Geogene] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.127.6 (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've redacted parts of the commentary above. Wikipedia's policies dictate that any negative information about a living person has to be well-documented by reliable sources, or else should be deleted on sight. This applies to articles as well as talk pages. As for the hit-and-run, there seem to be reliable sources that say that it happened, which is the only truth-standard relevant here. As for deleting the article, it's a possibility--Maguire looks to be a borderline-notable person and I agree that he shouldn't have an article. But, not enough people may agree on that point to get it done. Most importantly, this isn't a forum for grievances. Geogene (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the reliable source that says that it happened? They may 'seem' to exist, but they don't. The best source was the NY Times opinion article, the author of which has no idea whether or not it happened, and whose only evidence is the word of the man who to this day profits from the story by way of his extremely expensive metals advisory service.

Is all that is required for a charlatan to obtain notoriety, at least the notoriety afforded by a wikipedia page, a niche community and a single sympathetic opinion piece? A piece whose author would quite possibly not even endorse it today?73.7.86.153 (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Anonymous
 * This isn't a very good source but would probably meet the minimal requirements. I think I remember seeing a Sky News story on it last time I looked around for GATA-related stuff. Probably not meeting the minimal standards are the bulk of the sources that talk about Maguire, things like ZeroHedge and King World News. Most of the potential sources that are negative towards Maguire also tend to be low-reliability web-only outlets, and they would have to pass higher standards because they're negative towards a living person. I think that this entire article is getting closer to a deletion discussion. Geogene (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The reason I contacted Cohen (the author of the NY Times opinion piece) was because I extensively searched the UK media (using Google's news indexer for the dates in question), and came up with absolutely nothing - certainly not a Sky News article. Cohen himself says that Maguire does not believe the accident was in any way related to his 'whistleblower' status (though he has never said this publicly, I wonder why?), so why does it bear mentioning in the article?  Zero Hedge's original post on the hit-and-run (which they enthusiastically termed an 'assassination attempt') acknowledged that there were no independent sources reporting on the matter, and said they would follow up with such sources when they appeared .  To this day, that article has never been updated or followed up on.  I admit that I am interested in this article because I believe available evidence indicates that the man is a charlatan, but I absolutely acknowledge that I could be wrong.  I just want this article to reflect the actual, real evidence, not innuendo and unsupported claims by the conspiracy theorist community that support him.  If that evidence does not exist (and it does not appear to), I totally agree that the article needs to be deleted.  73.7.86.153 (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Anonymous

LBMA
Please stop calling this chap a trader at the London Bullion Market Association. The LBMA is a trade association (as can be easily discovered on their website), not an exchange and does not have 'traders'. He has never worked there. The New York Post is entirely ignorant of the London market. Ahatpin (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Dan Dontrose
This article by Dan Dontrose challenges many of the claims by Andrew Maguire and should be taken into consideration.
 * I’ve questioned Maguire’s “off” statements in the past before as well. In fact, I’ve often called him a charlatan who is living off his ego after he was appointed “whistleblower” despite the fact that the US Department of Justice called his evidence unreliable when they dismissed any price fixing claims against JP Morgan and HSBC.

LasGrutas (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Constantine Cannon and accredited whistleblowers
what is an "accredited whistleblower", why is Cannon's law firm important enough to put in the lead, and do you have sources for it? Geogene (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * an accredited whistleblower is someone who has presented evidence to a legal body. For example Maguire presented evidence to CFTC and Bart Chilton (CFTC commissioner) acknowledged this at the March 2010 CFTC Metals Meeting. I included the law firm as I thought it was another way of proving he was a legitimate whistleblower. I can remove the law form or put it further down the article if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazz2987 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. I think the mention of the law firm can stay where it is. Not as an off-site link per se, but if the firm's website has something on it that confirms he's their client, then we can use that page as a reference, which will contain a link anyway. If you know of something on that page, you can add a ref there where my "citation needed" tag is, or you can post a URL here and I'll add it as a ref. Geogene (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)