Talk:Joseph Maguire

Protected edit request on 25 September 2019 to remove false information
The Washington Post did indeed report that he threatened to resign but Director Maguire in a statement denied it saying, "I have never quit anything in my life" as you can see in this CNBC article

Please remove the following from the bio: Maguire threatened to resign his position of Director of the National Counterterrorism Center if he would not be allowed to testify before congress about the whisteblower complaint. Shemtov613 (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed per WP:BLP. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems to me the solution here (per the Conflicting sources essay) is to report both the original reporting and its denial rather than removing it entirely... 209.6.209.51 (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)]

Disingenuous editing
"After he retired, Maguire went to work as a vice president of Booz Allen Hamilton.[10]

After serving for three years on the board of the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, a foundation which provides financial assistance to severely wounded special operations troops as well as support for the children of those troops who have died, Maguire became the President and Chief Executive Officer of the foundation in 2013.[10]"

This formatting from the article is deceptive. It makes it appear that Joseph Maguire worked with a charitable organization while working with Booz Allen Hamilton. He actually left Booz Allen Hamilton after the company went public and then went to work for a charity. rem486 Rem486 (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete comma separating subject 'Committee' from verb 'issued'
On September 13, 2019, the House Intelligence Committee, issued a subpoena to Maguire alleging that he was unlawfully withholding a whistleblower complaint from the committee,[4][5] with Maguire to testify on September 26. Kgrad (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit request
Please copy in the expansions to the sections on his pre-government career, currently in User:Antony-22/sandbox. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 23:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit request to add Authority control template
Please add the template below the template  near the end of the article so that the authority control identifiers and links from Wikidata may be displayed. William Graham talk 16:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Izno (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment by 66.41.236.23
Please forward this to the appropriate parties (I have no idea who that might be or how this is done. I’m hoping someone reading this will help):

I am a doctoral-level psycho-sociologist who reads more “wiki talk pages” than actual articles. The subject of this article was previously largely unknown. That in the short span of the last week, there are requests on ‘his’ Talk Page to “fully protect” this page exemplifies a problem I have been considering for many months. I have decided to share my conclusions here, given that, again, this is an excellent example of what I am talking about, rather than using some other method to speak to the Wiki community and the leadership of Wikipedia:

The crowd-sourcing, open nature of Wikipedia led to one of the truly remarkable accomplishments in the history of the Internet, arguably *the* most remarkable. Bravo, sincerely.

But good systems are horrifically vulnerable to bad actors. As a result of these bad actors, Wiki started to add rules, additional guidelines and started to try and build in protections against bad actors in such mechanisms as conflict resolution, for example. Wiki lawyering became a thing and this too was exploited by bad actors.

However, Wikipedia has, organically and through time, become more than it set out to be. As an ongoing summary and history of record, by no fault of its own, Wiki has become a new facet of PR and political battleground, arguably for the world, certainly for the US.

Wiki began and grew as a low-drag, lean non-profit, depending on volunteers as their primary staff with, relatively speaking, few full-time actual employees.

Wiki can no longer go on as a responsible social organization without addressing, comprehensively, what it has become over the last decade. The tidal wave of professional businesses that include “Wiki-page monitoring, wiki-based identity protection, and Wiki-based PR manipulation as among their services speaks to the veracity of my reflections and conclusions in this matter.

The scope of the problem and what I believe must be the ethical response to the situation by Wikipedia would require an increase the number of paid employees by 2-decimal points.

But something dramatic needs to change. Wikipedia not addressing the battleground it has become, of which this article is a living example, would ultimately be unethical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.236.23 (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)