User talk:AbejaAbajo

Comments needed for consensus on Lurita Doan

Hello, I noticed that you were participating in a discussion on the Lurita Doan page. Changes have been made there and I was hoping you could weigh in there. It appears there are several POV concerns that need to be addressed by the editor in question.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Rewrite on Lurita Doan: Controversies

OK, let's take the section of your comments that addresses my chief complaint with the rewrite: WP:ASF

You said:

4) Regarding the current language in the controversies section, Shakespeare1616's second issue and Happysomeone's comments, I worry about Happysomeone's POV demonstrated in the above comment and would use this as an argument for adopting Swimandrow's proposed language - as - it addresses both the events that happened and shows the significant lapse of time between the recommendation and Doan's resignation.

(bold and emphasis mine)

It seems there are two points here compacted into one sentence. Let's take them one at a time. 1) "Proposed language as it addresses both the events that happened and shows the significant lapse of time." First, let's get one thing out of the way here: When I said

I agree to a limited extent. Certainly, the Oval Office was in no hurry after the OSC offered their recommendations and that should be worked into the final graph. We seem to disagree, however, on what constitutes WP:ASF re: "a better story and presents the facts in a manner that makes sense."

That did not mean "IT SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED," as you can read above. I do not specifically endorse the order it is presently in, but certainly feel it is better than the proposal.

I'm happy to focus on this last graph as it seems to be where most of the concerns are.

It seems to me the chief complaint here centers on the actual organization of the information of the graph. This is also pertinent re: WP:UNDUE. Specifically, inserting commentary from Doan in the final paragraph is a clear demonstration of this, as I have also said before. Perhaps my writing is unclear enough, so I will attempt to outline what I understand a "simple formulation" to mean.

1) Doan was (and perhaps still is) under investigation by Congressional Committee and majority opinion held she violated Hatch Act (FACT and has DUE WEIGHT i.e. relevant to subject at hand). 2) USOC later finds the same thing and forwards recommendation to White House for Doan to be "disciplined to the fullest extent" (FACT and DUE WEIGHT) 3) White House takes no action for 11 months, then requests resignation -- no reason given for dismissal (FACTS - should be added to final graph). 4) "Doan was quoted in several media reports saying that intra-agency disputes with IG Brian D. Miller had created a “distraction.” (OPINION and UNDUE WEIGHT - This should not be added to article)

The decision, as it always would be, given the GSA head is a Pres. appointment, rested w/ POTUS and they asked for the resignation. But they never gave a reason. So all we can do is give the reader facts relating to her work and allow them to come up with their own conclusions. The ordering of these items that deserve to be included here are important and should be addressed per WP:ASF, as I discussed before in comparing the two.

2) "I worry about Happysomeone's POV demonstrated in the above comment and would use this as an argument for adopting..."

I'm a little unclear on this one and want to be sure I understand this correctly, so as not to take you out of context. What is meant by this comment?--Happysomeone (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me and being active in this discussion. I stand by keeping in the information about why Doan felt she was told to hit the road. This article [[1]] elaborates on that and is one of many articles describes the stormy relationship she had with the IG's office, a very important and telling detail to the controversies section. To your second question, no offense was intended in that comment, but I am a little concerned about your POV. In an earlier comment on the talk page you wrote about how Doan fits into the "broader tableau of the Bush administration" and likened her to Alberto Gonzalez, Scott Jennings and Monica Goodling, people who I feel have done much more damage and in your second point later on you say "the Oval Office was in no hurry after the OSC offered their recommendations," yet you are trying to excise out any language regarding the intra-agency conflict which Doan felt led to her dismissal. I appreciate having a contrast to Shakespeare1616's clear conflict and think we can make this a better section, as long as we all can check our POV's at the door. That being said, you seem to be concerned with WP:ASF in the proposed language, but besides that concern, what do you think of it? Do you think it could/should be adopted wholesale? What parts need improvement? Thanks! AbejaAbajo (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• • 1) It is an opinion, gives too much weight and is inappropriate in it's proposed, unbalanced form. I would use caution in stating her opinion, as reviewed through the media filter, unchallenged. You're courting iraqi aluminum tubes here. This example is one of many that goes to the heart of my WP:ASF concerns. Nonetheless, I appreciate your pointing me toward the article and I think we have a way forward here. But in a very MEASURED way. I am absolutely opposed to adopting the edit "wholesale". It is my opinion that we should address only the concerns raised by the NPOV notice.

2) I'm sorry to hear your concerns about bias. I've attempted to play the part of a contributor here in good faith and I'm not opposed to improving and creating an unbiased article. It appears you may be misinterpreting my previous observations. Concerning my comment re:"the broader tableau of the Bush Administration," this is a statement that underlines the historical relevance of Doan as a presidential appointee: Her relevance is (as I later on describe) directly related to questions she has faced in several investigations - which are notable - and as an appointee, the inquiries directly reflect on the prerogatives of the White House. My comment re: "likened her to Alberto Gonzalez, Scott Jennings and Monica Goodling," was directed to the proposed omission of the congressional and OSC investigations into Hatch Act violations (one of the reasons she was investigated). I likened THE OMISSION OF THAT INFORMATION as a mistake equal in importance to making a similar omission on the articles concerning Gonzalez, Goodling and Jennings.--Happysomeone (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, not sure what you mean by " I appreciate having a contrast to Shakespeare1616's clear conflict."