![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hey, Neutrality, you don't think Reuters calling the signers "experts in transition" is important enough to include? —valereee ( talk) 13:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
We just got a shout out about this article on
MSNBC's
Deadline: White House when Representative
Donna Edwards said "Emily Murphy. Remember her name. Her Wikipedia article will be changed forever."
Missvain (
talk)
21:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Just a FYI recent upload: A public domain (federal) video I just uploaded of Katie Porter talking about Murphy. (Not expecting any action here, but, just letting you know since it is relevant to all things Emily Murphy right now!) Missvain ( talk) 22:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey, Snooganssnoogans, let's discuss synth. I think this needs to be in here, but I'm open to how. What was concerning you? —valereee ( talk) 17:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Neutrality, Valereee, and Snooganssnoogans: Please help me understand why a condensed version of this information from NYT cannot be included in the article. Quoted from NYT:
"A White House official pointed out, as several Trump allies have, that the transition after the 2000 presidential election was delayed by the court fight between the campaigns of Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush of Texas over several weeks. The official said it would be strange for President Trump to send some kind of a signal to allow the transition to start while he is still engaged in court fights.
But Mr. Biden’s aides said that the dispute in 2000 involved one state with only about 500 ballots separating the winner and loser, far less than in the current contest. In every other presidential race for the past 60 years, the determination of a winner was made within 24 hours, they said — even as legal challenges and recounts continued for weeks."
Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 18:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Snooganssnoogans, I object both to the characterization of this as edit warring (I waited over two days for a response to my last post before making a change) or as misleading. Look, snoogans, I'm a progressive. I hold Donald Trump in absolute contempt. I think what this woman is doing is a bit despicable, though I have no doubt she's between a rock and a hard place. But that doesn't change the fact that this article needs to be fair to the person it's about. I am not trying to feed into ANYTHING. I am trying to include information that is pertinent, and I've been trying to find a neutral way to incorporate what's being covered by RS at some length. We can quote them where they point out the differences; that's fine. But we can't just leave it out when it's being covered by literally the very best RS. —valereee ( talk) 19:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
But Mr. Biden’s aides said that the dispute in 2000 involved one state with only about 500 ballots separating the winner and loser, far less than in the current contest. In every other presidential race for the past 60 years, the determination of a winner was made within 24 hours, they said — even as legal challenges and recounts continued for weeks.I think that makes the point pretty directly but I don't see a need for a direct quote. Do you think it needs something like "Biden's aides have pointed out that.."? The facts are not contested, but does the connection to the current situation need attribution? -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC) P.S. Thanks, Sundayclose, that was what it needed! -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
BTW, does that sentence about the 2016 election, in the same paragraph, seem out of place to you? I'm not really sure what its point is. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey, Jonathunder, I'm not sure that source is sufficient for a blp dob? —valereee ( talk) 17:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
AHC300 let's talk —valereee ( talk) 17:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Add DOB: 12/27 https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/27/playbook-birthday-emily-murphy-089863 Smoresandmore292 ( talk) 17:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Feoffer I don't think that's a neutral improvement. Let's talk. —valereee ( talk) 23:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Links to the IG reports were removed by Valereee as OR. It's literally just a footnote, so it's not a high-priority concern, but for the record, this is an example of WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Yes, the secondary source by itself can get the job done, but having taken the time to double-check that the quoted primary documents do exist, there's no reason not to pass that extra reference of verifiable information onto our readers. Feoffer ( talk) 22:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![]() | This
edit request to
Emily W. Murphy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "Ideology and Approach" section is nothing more than quotations of subjective opinions which fail to look at the evidence of her actual record. Other sections more clearly demonstrate her approach to the role by concretely examining her known actions and personal statements. This "Ideology and Approach" section (which neither sets out her ideologies nor her approach) therefore comes off as an unobjective attempt to rehabilitate her character than an objective expression of her ideology and approach, and seems highly inappropriate as currently set out. I suggest if the quotes in that section are left in that they be placed within a more appropriate context, or be balanced by other opinions (especially those that refer to details of her actual performance of her role) such as those expressed in this article https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2020/11/13/the-presidential-transition-meets-murphys-law/ 110.32.82.135 ( talk) 21:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ Feoffer: I see no compelling reason to include this. There are many people who have condemned Murphy's actions. As McCaskill has no particular authority or expertise on GSA matters, I see no reason to include her quotation in particular (bearing in mind that this is, after all, a BLP). AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 00:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
We had: The Trump administration's attempt to undermine the election result, including the refusal to cooperate in the transition, has been described as an attempted coup. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
I don't think any of these sources even mention the article subject? —valereee ( talk) 19:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
References
Hi team - Just a gentle reminder about keeping things
WP:CIVIL and assuming good faith with one another. Thank you!
Missvain (
talk)
22:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Since
this content is continually being added with a cite overkill, it's prudent to discuss that here. Most of the sources don't even mention Emily Murphy at all. Meanwhile, the edit makes it sound like Murphy is the mastermind along with Trump. Murphy’s refusal to cooperate in the transition, in conjunction with the Trump administration's attempt to undermine the election result, has been described as an attempted
coup.
Special:Diff/990133556 restored this, saying a source was found that that both verified this sentence AND mentioned Murphy
.
That source mentions Murphy in the following context:
General Services Administration head Emily Murphy, a Trump appointee, is refusing to sign paperwork that would allow the Biden transition team to begin work. Trump's campaign is continuing to file relentless and frivolous suits, even though they're getting promptly thrown out of court, making false allegations of "voter fraud.
This does not even nearly say what you are trying to say with it. It is not enough for the source to simply say "Emily Murphy", it actually needs to verify the statement you're making, which is that Murphy's actions have been described as a coup. You are also going about this completely the wrong way. You have determined an opinion and are trying to shoehorn sources into proving said opinion, rather than doing what you should be doing and reading the sources and neutrally trying to describe what they're saying. That is clearly not what is happening here. Valereee disputed this content above, as well, for the same reasons, long before I got here - Talk:Emily_W._Murphy#removal_of_content_22Nov. I am removing that content under WP:3RRBLP -- that is a serious BLP violation as it stands currently.
I strongly advise you not to restore that content until you have a consensus here, on talk, that you have finally found a source that says what you're trying to say with it. Bombing it with more cites is not that. Please do not turn this into a conduct issue. If your assertion is correct, we will figure it out here and it will be duly added. In the meantime, it appears currently it is not correct, certainly it hasn't been substantiated if it is, and so there is no harm in leaving it out until it can be substantiated. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 00:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
it actually needs to verify the statement you're making, which is that Murphy's actions have been described as a coupProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 00:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy.Each sentence is failed. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 02:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Snooganssnoogans: by all means, re-add the material that has been purged if you feel it merits it. There was no consensus for its removal. Feoffer ( talk) 06:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
More material has been purged despite being included since mid 2019. WP:ONUS doesn't mean delete anything you object to and force others to generate consensus to re-add it. Feoffer ( talk) 05:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
These personal comments are really not helpful to resolving the issue. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Emily W. Murphy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Original statement: "GSA oversees the federal civilian workforce, federal government properties, and federal contracts."
This statement is incorrect. The GSA does not oversee the federal workforce, OPM does that. The GSA does not oversee federal contracts, only its own contracts.
Corrected statement: "GSA oversees federal government properties." 108.31.161.51 ( talk) 18:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@ ProcrastinatingReader and Valereee: While I appreciate your WP:BLP concerns (evidently related to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Emily_W._Murphy_BLP_NPOV_concerns), you have both made a number of drastic changes to this article in the past while. I am thinking in particular of Special:Diff/990093837 and Special:Diff/990104220. All of these portions of text are reliably sourced. I think we need some discussion about these unilateral removals (one of which I have restored to the relevant section of the body). AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 21:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
On November 13, the Washington Post profiled Emily Wang Murphy, a DC lawyer who was being contacted by members of the public mistaking her for GSA administrator Emily Webster Murphy.Do I seriously need to say more? And that's before we dig into the obvious synthesis of sources in an attempt to push a POV on the article of someone caught up in Trump's dumpster fire. You may seriously wish to re-evaluate your position here. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 21:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
About half the article has been deleted though well-sourced. Here is the material that should be restored. Feoffer ( talk) 21:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
References
FWIW, I think the article is back to being neutral. I have no objection to discussing further additions, but I think we have a contentious enough situation here that further changes need to be discussed.
Feoffer, I understand that you feel it's not fair to require those wanting to add stuff to an article to have the ONUS for proving it has consensus, but that's community policy, and in fact one of the few exceptions to 3RR is reverting what we believe are violations of BLP, which both PR and I think 24 hours ago was a problem here. I started editing this article before you did, actually, and you really only started editing in the last week; you can't argue this was a stable article. The article is already at BLPN, where I took it just a few days after you started editing heavily instead of trying to pull anything like that. I don't think this has represented edit-warring, but I'm claiming a BLP exemption for the recent editing, which is recommended in such cases. If you/Snoogans truly believe this represents edit-warring, you can report at WP:ANEW. —valereee ( talk) 11:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I have asked for a review at WP:AN. —valereee ( talk) 11:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
There are so many threads here I don't know where to put this. By now there's a few experienced editors who are looking at this, including Xaosflux and Callanecc (I note these are both users whose consonants sometimes confuse me). —valereee, I think I am with you in assessing what's been happening here. Saying that the subject of the article is engaged in a coup d'état is an unacceptable BLP violation; saying that some are saying that is less of a BLP violation but is easily UNDUE. I'm removing the drinks and sex on the rooftop section--it's way too vaguely directed at her and it will need consensus to put it in here; yes, I'm crying BLP. Feoffer, you need to be treading much more lightly here, both in the tone of your comments here on the talk page and in the content. You were notified of the possibility of discretionary sanctions in the American politics area and in regard to BLPs; trust me when I say that I will not hesitate, as a neutral administrator who values the BLP over many other things, to impose, for instance, a topic ban pertaining to this article. Now, the article is fully protected for a few more days and given how fast things go, much may have changed by then and all this may have blown over; alternately, you may have seen that four admins have now expressed concerns and I hope that you take their concerns seriously. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 22:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add this image to the subsection of this article, Emily_W._Murphy#Refusal_to_begin_presidential_transition.
Thank you! Right cite ( talk) 00:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
![]() | This
edit request to
Emily W. Murphy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section about the 2020 election, the line "Before the 2020 election, Murphy had reportedly spoken with David Barram, who was President Bill Clinton's GSA administrator during the 2000 election, about the appropriate steps to take during a possible transition of power.[10] " should be edited to reflect that Barram was a Clinton appointee. George W. Bush was the winner of the election but not the President during the election or Barram's appointer. Barram's affiliation with any president could also be removed, which would better reflect the GSA's non-partisanship. Walterrs220 ( talk) 02:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Since discussions on this talk page seem to be working towards a positive outcome, I've dropped the page protection down to extended confirmed for a month so that more editors can update the article, especially since this is a current event. In addition to the protection, to ensure that there remains a focus on discussion and editing according to our policies, I have imposed a restriction which states that All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit.
For the avoidance of doubt, this includes any edits which have already been removed from the article and are being discussed above. There must be a consensus on this page before that content can be included in the article. I would also caution all editors that the biographies of living persons and the verifiability policies will be strictly enforced on this article. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Jayron32 I've reverted part of your change. Could you please cite a source for this? Baltimore Sun doesn't seem to say that statement. It reads like Murphy waited for Trump's approval, and made the decision only when she got it. Her statement says exactly the opposite, and I don't see the source disputing that. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Emily W. Murphy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article should include the tweet from President Donald Trump as it challenges the statement of the letter to Biden that Emily W. Murphy was not instructed by the executive branch.
Tweet Below: "I want to thank Emily Murphy at GSA for her steadfast dedication and loyalty to our Country. She has been harassed, threatened, and abused – and I do not want to see this happen to her, her family, or employees of GSA. Our case STRONGLY continues, we will keep up the good fight, and I believe we will prevail! Nevertheless, in the best interest of our Country, I am recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols, and have told my team to do the same. Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 173.52.36.147 ( talk) 01:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The question of whether Trump instructed Murphy to block and then allow Biden transition does not have to be answered on Wikipedia. We just need to report the fact that via Twitter, Trump "recommended" Murphy to allow the transition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.223.43.133 ( talk) 04:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Suggested potential sources (and image) to update on the discrepancies between the US President "recommending" the GSA start the transition to the Biden Administration — vs. the GSA Administrator stating they did this without White House influence.
Thank you, Right cite ( talk) 13:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Trump in two tweets wrote that he had asked his administration to begin the transition, though he did not concede his loss to Biden and said he would keep fighting.A Trump tweet is indeed not enough to make the claim. Aside from this quote (assuming you think this is trying to make the statement as fact, I don't), and the bait-y headline, neither of which count for much, there is no other mention or implication Trump gave the directive. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 14:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
While Trump said he had recommended the moves, Emily Murphy, the Trump appointee who heads the GSA, wrote in her "letter of ascertainment" to Biden that she had reached the decision independently.
Suggested source, NPR, pointing out discrepancy. Right cite ( talk) 14:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hatting disruption ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 17:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Some of the advisers drafted a statement for the president to issue. In the end, Mr. Trump did not put one out, but aides said the tone was similar to his tweets in the evening, in which he appeared to take credit for Ms. Murphy's decision to allow the transition to begin. "Our case STRONGLY continues, we will keep up the good fight, and I believe we will prevail!" he wrote. "Nevertheless, in the best interest of our Country, I am recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols, and have told my team to do the same."
Suggested source -- The New York Times -- to use to point out the discrepancy. Right cite ( talk) 14:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hatting disruption ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 17:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hey, Neutrality, you don't think Reuters calling the signers "experts in transition" is important enough to include? —valereee ( talk) 13:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
We just got a shout out about this article on
MSNBC's
Deadline: White House when Representative
Donna Edwards said "Emily Murphy. Remember her name. Her Wikipedia article will be changed forever."
Missvain (
talk)
21:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Just a FYI recent upload: A public domain (federal) video I just uploaded of Katie Porter talking about Murphy. (Not expecting any action here, but, just letting you know since it is relevant to all things Emily Murphy right now!) Missvain ( talk) 22:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey, Snooganssnoogans, let's discuss synth. I think this needs to be in here, but I'm open to how. What was concerning you? —valereee ( talk) 17:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Neutrality, Valereee, and Snooganssnoogans: Please help me understand why a condensed version of this information from NYT cannot be included in the article. Quoted from NYT:
"A White House official pointed out, as several Trump allies have, that the transition after the 2000 presidential election was delayed by the court fight between the campaigns of Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush of Texas over several weeks. The official said it would be strange for President Trump to send some kind of a signal to allow the transition to start while he is still engaged in court fights.
But Mr. Biden’s aides said that the dispute in 2000 involved one state with only about 500 ballots separating the winner and loser, far less than in the current contest. In every other presidential race for the past 60 years, the determination of a winner was made within 24 hours, they said — even as legal challenges and recounts continued for weeks."
Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 18:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Snooganssnoogans, I object both to the characterization of this as edit warring (I waited over two days for a response to my last post before making a change) or as misleading. Look, snoogans, I'm a progressive. I hold Donald Trump in absolute contempt. I think what this woman is doing is a bit despicable, though I have no doubt she's between a rock and a hard place. But that doesn't change the fact that this article needs to be fair to the person it's about. I am not trying to feed into ANYTHING. I am trying to include information that is pertinent, and I've been trying to find a neutral way to incorporate what's being covered by RS at some length. We can quote them where they point out the differences; that's fine. But we can't just leave it out when it's being covered by literally the very best RS. —valereee ( talk) 19:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
But Mr. Biden’s aides said that the dispute in 2000 involved one state with only about 500 ballots separating the winner and loser, far less than in the current contest. In every other presidential race for the past 60 years, the determination of a winner was made within 24 hours, they said — even as legal challenges and recounts continued for weeks.I think that makes the point pretty directly but I don't see a need for a direct quote. Do you think it needs something like "Biden's aides have pointed out that.."? The facts are not contested, but does the connection to the current situation need attribution? -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC) P.S. Thanks, Sundayclose, that was what it needed! -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
BTW, does that sentence about the 2016 election, in the same paragraph, seem out of place to you? I'm not really sure what its point is. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey, Jonathunder, I'm not sure that source is sufficient for a blp dob? —valereee ( talk) 17:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
AHC300 let's talk —valereee ( talk) 17:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Add DOB: 12/27 https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/27/playbook-birthday-emily-murphy-089863 Smoresandmore292 ( talk) 17:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Feoffer I don't think that's a neutral improvement. Let's talk. —valereee ( talk) 23:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Links to the IG reports were removed by Valereee as OR. It's literally just a footnote, so it's not a high-priority concern, but for the record, this is an example of WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Yes, the secondary source by itself can get the job done, but having taken the time to double-check that the quoted primary documents do exist, there's no reason not to pass that extra reference of verifiable information onto our readers. Feoffer ( talk) 22:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![]() | This
edit request to
Emily W. Murphy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "Ideology and Approach" section is nothing more than quotations of subjective opinions which fail to look at the evidence of her actual record. Other sections more clearly demonstrate her approach to the role by concretely examining her known actions and personal statements. This "Ideology and Approach" section (which neither sets out her ideologies nor her approach) therefore comes off as an unobjective attempt to rehabilitate her character than an objective expression of her ideology and approach, and seems highly inappropriate as currently set out. I suggest if the quotes in that section are left in that they be placed within a more appropriate context, or be balanced by other opinions (especially those that refer to details of her actual performance of her role) such as those expressed in this article https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2020/11/13/the-presidential-transition-meets-murphys-law/ 110.32.82.135 ( talk) 21:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ Feoffer: I see no compelling reason to include this. There are many people who have condemned Murphy's actions. As McCaskill has no particular authority or expertise on GSA matters, I see no reason to include her quotation in particular (bearing in mind that this is, after all, a BLP). AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 00:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
We had: The Trump administration's attempt to undermine the election result, including the refusal to cooperate in the transition, has been described as an attempted coup. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
I don't think any of these sources even mention the article subject? —valereee ( talk) 19:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
References
Hi team - Just a gentle reminder about keeping things
WP:CIVIL and assuming good faith with one another. Thank you!
Missvain (
talk)
22:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Since
this content is continually being added with a cite overkill, it's prudent to discuss that here. Most of the sources don't even mention Emily Murphy at all. Meanwhile, the edit makes it sound like Murphy is the mastermind along with Trump. Murphy’s refusal to cooperate in the transition, in conjunction with the Trump administration's attempt to undermine the election result, has been described as an attempted
coup.
Special:Diff/990133556 restored this, saying a source was found that that both verified this sentence AND mentioned Murphy
.
That source mentions Murphy in the following context:
General Services Administration head Emily Murphy, a Trump appointee, is refusing to sign paperwork that would allow the Biden transition team to begin work. Trump's campaign is continuing to file relentless and frivolous suits, even though they're getting promptly thrown out of court, making false allegations of "voter fraud.
This does not even nearly say what you are trying to say with it. It is not enough for the source to simply say "Emily Murphy", it actually needs to verify the statement you're making, which is that Murphy's actions have been described as a coup. You are also going about this completely the wrong way. You have determined an opinion and are trying to shoehorn sources into proving said opinion, rather than doing what you should be doing and reading the sources and neutrally trying to describe what they're saying. That is clearly not what is happening here. Valereee disputed this content above, as well, for the same reasons, long before I got here - Talk:Emily_W._Murphy#removal_of_content_22Nov. I am removing that content under WP:3RRBLP -- that is a serious BLP violation as it stands currently.
I strongly advise you not to restore that content until you have a consensus here, on talk, that you have finally found a source that says what you're trying to say with it. Bombing it with more cites is not that. Please do not turn this into a conduct issue. If your assertion is correct, we will figure it out here and it will be duly added. In the meantime, it appears currently it is not correct, certainly it hasn't been substantiated if it is, and so there is no harm in leaving it out until it can be substantiated. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 00:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
it actually needs to verify the statement you're making, which is that Murphy's actions have been described as a coupProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 00:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy.Each sentence is failed. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 02:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Snooganssnoogans: by all means, re-add the material that has been purged if you feel it merits it. There was no consensus for its removal. Feoffer ( talk) 06:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
More material has been purged despite being included since mid 2019. WP:ONUS doesn't mean delete anything you object to and force others to generate consensus to re-add it. Feoffer ( talk) 05:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
These personal comments are really not helpful to resolving the issue. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Emily W. Murphy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Original statement: "GSA oversees the federal civilian workforce, federal government properties, and federal contracts."
This statement is incorrect. The GSA does not oversee the federal workforce, OPM does that. The GSA does not oversee federal contracts, only its own contracts.
Corrected statement: "GSA oversees federal government properties." 108.31.161.51 ( talk) 18:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@ ProcrastinatingReader and Valereee: While I appreciate your WP:BLP concerns (evidently related to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Emily_W._Murphy_BLP_NPOV_concerns), you have both made a number of drastic changes to this article in the past while. I am thinking in particular of Special:Diff/990093837 and Special:Diff/990104220. All of these portions of text are reliably sourced. I think we need some discussion about these unilateral removals (one of which I have restored to the relevant section of the body). AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 21:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
On November 13, the Washington Post profiled Emily Wang Murphy, a DC lawyer who was being contacted by members of the public mistaking her for GSA administrator Emily Webster Murphy.Do I seriously need to say more? And that's before we dig into the obvious synthesis of sources in an attempt to push a POV on the article of someone caught up in Trump's dumpster fire. You may seriously wish to re-evaluate your position here. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 21:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
About half the article has been deleted though well-sourced. Here is the material that should be restored. Feoffer ( talk) 21:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
References
FWIW, I think the article is back to being neutral. I have no objection to discussing further additions, but I think we have a contentious enough situation here that further changes need to be discussed.
Feoffer, I understand that you feel it's not fair to require those wanting to add stuff to an article to have the ONUS for proving it has consensus, but that's community policy, and in fact one of the few exceptions to 3RR is reverting what we believe are violations of BLP, which both PR and I think 24 hours ago was a problem here. I started editing this article before you did, actually, and you really only started editing in the last week; you can't argue this was a stable article. The article is already at BLPN, where I took it just a few days after you started editing heavily instead of trying to pull anything like that. I don't think this has represented edit-warring, but I'm claiming a BLP exemption for the recent editing, which is recommended in such cases. If you/Snoogans truly believe this represents edit-warring, you can report at WP:ANEW. —valereee ( talk) 11:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I have asked for a review at WP:AN. —valereee ( talk) 11:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
There are so many threads here I don't know where to put this. By now there's a few experienced editors who are looking at this, including Xaosflux and Callanecc (I note these are both users whose consonants sometimes confuse me). —valereee, I think I am with you in assessing what's been happening here. Saying that the subject of the article is engaged in a coup d'état is an unacceptable BLP violation; saying that some are saying that is less of a BLP violation but is easily UNDUE. I'm removing the drinks and sex on the rooftop section--it's way too vaguely directed at her and it will need consensus to put it in here; yes, I'm crying BLP. Feoffer, you need to be treading much more lightly here, both in the tone of your comments here on the talk page and in the content. You were notified of the possibility of discretionary sanctions in the American politics area and in regard to BLPs; trust me when I say that I will not hesitate, as a neutral administrator who values the BLP over many other things, to impose, for instance, a topic ban pertaining to this article. Now, the article is fully protected for a few more days and given how fast things go, much may have changed by then and all this may have blown over; alternately, you may have seen that four admins have now expressed concerns and I hope that you take their concerns seriously. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 22:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add this image to the subsection of this article, Emily_W._Murphy#Refusal_to_begin_presidential_transition.
Thank you! Right cite ( talk) 00:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
![]() | This
edit request to
Emily W. Murphy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section about the 2020 election, the line "Before the 2020 election, Murphy had reportedly spoken with David Barram, who was President Bill Clinton's GSA administrator during the 2000 election, about the appropriate steps to take during a possible transition of power.[10] " should be edited to reflect that Barram was a Clinton appointee. George W. Bush was the winner of the election but not the President during the election or Barram's appointer. Barram's affiliation with any president could also be removed, which would better reflect the GSA's non-partisanship. Walterrs220 ( talk) 02:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Since discussions on this talk page seem to be working towards a positive outcome, I've dropped the page protection down to extended confirmed for a month so that more editors can update the article, especially since this is a current event. In addition to the protection, to ensure that there remains a focus on discussion and editing according to our policies, I have imposed a restriction which states that All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit.
For the avoidance of doubt, this includes any edits which have already been removed from the article and are being discussed above. There must be a consensus on this page before that content can be included in the article. I would also caution all editors that the biographies of living persons and the verifiability policies will be strictly enforced on this article. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Jayron32 I've reverted part of your change. Could you please cite a source for this? Baltimore Sun doesn't seem to say that statement. It reads like Murphy waited for Trump's approval, and made the decision only when she got it. Her statement says exactly the opposite, and I don't see the source disputing that. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Emily W. Murphy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article should include the tweet from President Donald Trump as it challenges the statement of the letter to Biden that Emily W. Murphy was not instructed by the executive branch.
Tweet Below: "I want to thank Emily Murphy at GSA for her steadfast dedication and loyalty to our Country. She has been harassed, threatened, and abused – and I do not want to see this happen to her, her family, or employees of GSA. Our case STRONGLY continues, we will keep up the good fight, and I believe we will prevail! Nevertheless, in the best interest of our Country, I am recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols, and have told my team to do the same. Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 173.52.36.147 ( talk) 01:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The question of whether Trump instructed Murphy to block and then allow Biden transition does not have to be answered on Wikipedia. We just need to report the fact that via Twitter, Trump "recommended" Murphy to allow the transition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.223.43.133 ( talk) 04:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Suggested potential sources (and image) to update on the discrepancies between the US President "recommending" the GSA start the transition to the Biden Administration — vs. the GSA Administrator stating they did this without White House influence.
Thank you, Right cite ( talk) 13:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Trump in two tweets wrote that he had asked his administration to begin the transition, though he did not concede his loss to Biden and said he would keep fighting.A Trump tweet is indeed not enough to make the claim. Aside from this quote (assuming you think this is trying to make the statement as fact, I don't), and the bait-y headline, neither of which count for much, there is no other mention or implication Trump gave the directive. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 14:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
While Trump said he had recommended the moves, Emily Murphy, the Trump appointee who heads the GSA, wrote in her "letter of ascertainment" to Biden that she had reached the decision independently.
Suggested source, NPR, pointing out discrepancy. Right cite ( talk) 14:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hatting disruption ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 17:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Some of the advisers drafted a statement for the president to issue. In the end, Mr. Trump did not put one out, but aides said the tone was similar to his tweets in the evening, in which he appeared to take credit for Ms. Murphy's decision to allow the transition to begin. "Our case STRONGLY continues, we will keep up the good fight, and I believe we will prevail!" he wrote. "Nevertheless, in the best interest of our Country, I am recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols, and have told my team to do the same."
Suggested source -- The New York Times -- to use to point out the discrepancy. Right cite ( talk) 14:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hatting disruption ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 17:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|