![]() | 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 |
Missvain ( talk) 23:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
On November 23, 2020, after the state of Michigan certified results, Murphy issued the letter of ascertainment.
And source it to the Baltimore Sun article.
Comments? —valereee ( talk) 00:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The source used has "apparent winner" in quotes in its headline, as do lots of other headlines and the quote also appears in the body of some articles, such as The Toronto Star, but this phrase does not appear in Murphy's letter which is careful to say nothing of the sort: "As you know, the GSA Administrator does not pick or certify the winner of a presidential election. Instead, the GSA Administrator’s role under the Act is extremely narrow: to make resources and services available in connection with a presidential transition. ... I have determined that you may access the post-election resources and services ... The actual winner of the presidential election will be determined by the electoral process detailed in the Constitution." (emphasis added by me) Our content cannot parrot inaccuracies in normally reliable sources (many based on a single AP report). -- Mirokado ( talk) 02:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the response, @ Xaosflux:. The origin of the phrase "apparent winner", if not sloppy editorialising from PA, may have been this earlier statement from GSA, reported in The Washington Business Journal: "Murphy does not pick the winner of the presidential election, the GSA said in a statement, she only ascertains that apparent successful candidate once a winner is clear based on the process laid out in the Constitution." I propose that we insert "Federal transition resources for" so the sentence reads "Murphy ascertained Federal transition resources for Biden as the apparent winner on November 23, 2020." This says clearly what Murphy actually ascertained along with her justification for that ascertainment. The addition is already supported by the Baltimore Sun source with the phrase "... allowing Biden to coordinate with federal agencies on plans for taking over on Jan. 20." -- Mirokado ( talk) 04:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the When Joe Biden was generally acknowledged on November 7, 2020 to have won the 2020 United States presidential election, Murphy refused to sign a letter allowing Biden's transition team to access federal agencies and transition funds; this came as Trump refused to acknowledge Biden's victory.[2] Murphy ascertained Biden as the apparent winner on November 23, 2020.[3]
section seems a bit off:
Since I'm making suggestions here, I'm slightly involved now so won't be making the edit while the page is FP; would be nice to have someone review this section for a solid replacement paragraph to be reviewed by the next patrolling admin. — xaosflux Talk 12:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the following sentences are just too much, especially for a biography of a subject, given that: (a) the letter is now signed, (b) the net delay compared to last election was 15 days, (c) the source simply says the enumerated list of benefits was on hold for now, (d) benefits are now given, and (e) afaik reliable sources haven't said, in their own voice, the delay caused damages. In WP:10YEARTEST the "potential for damage" if it continues is irrelevant, but actual damage caused may be. afaik no RS are claiming that there was materialised damages, just the potential for them there to be, or attributed claims of the same by House Democrats / the Biden campaign. Plus, "refuses" is a bit of a strong word given (at a skim) it seems none of the sources use the word in this particular manner.
Quote I think needs to go:
By refusing to allow the transition to proceed, she prevented the incoming administration from obtaining office space, performing background checks on prospective Cabinet nominees, and accessing classified information. [1] [2] [3] Murphy's withholding of the letter also blocked Biden's transition team from accessing several million dollars in federal transition funds for salaries and other costs, establishing government email addresses, and working with the Office of Government Ethics on required financial disclosure and conflict-of-interest forms for incoming nominees. [1] [2]
This theorising on the delay may be more appropriate for Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results, but nothing was actioned and I think it's quite inappropriate here. Further, we already have a quote from the House Democrats letter in the next paragraph, which is more crisp and attributed, which addresses key weaknesses of delay (pandemic, economy, national security). ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
References
Rein
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).StandsBetween
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I think it's appropriate to reinsert Special:Diff/990115519, as a starting point or some variant thereof, content removed by Feoffer, which appears to be the consensus of reliable sources which discuss the subject as a whole, and the dilemma of the situation. I think excluding this deprives readers of essential context surrounding the ascertainment process in this unprecedented election cycle. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 22:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Murphy has been described as a "technocrat" and "policy wonk", without a strong affiliation with Donald Trump. Acquaintances described her thought process during the two weeks she declined to ascertain Biden's apparent victory as agonizing.
Hey, AleatoryPonderings! What were you objecting to? That was supported by the source. —valereee ( talk) 14:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The letter to authorize President-elect Joe Biden's transition arrived late Monday — but it is an unusual document that strained to avoid acknowledging his victory. The General Services Administration's administrator, Emily Murphy, wrote to Biden on Monday, 16 tumultuous days after most US news organizations acknowledged him as the winner. (Insider and Decision Desk HQ called the election one day before, on November 6.) Later Monday, President Donald Trump tweeted that he was "recommending" that the transition go ahead — though Murphy said she came to her decision independently.
Detailed analysis of the GSA letter, by Business Insider. Right cite ( talk)
WaPo calls the letter " unusually personal". Worth adding into the final sentence? —valereee ( talk) 20:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The letter failed to refer to Biden as President-elect, nor did it say she explicitly was granting ascertainment. But it allowed Biden to start the transition and gave him access to $6.3 million in government funding provided under the law, officially ending the 16-day standoff between an obscure federal agency head and the next US president.
Detailed analysis of the standoff between the GSA and the Biden transition. Right cite ( talk) 04:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I just reverted a series of edits by Greenknight dv which added a statement based on the following refs:
I think this edit adds
WP:UNDUE weight and possibly involves
WP:SYNTH, because neither of sources in question identify who was supporting whom (it's hard to know how we would tell, in any event). We could possibly say after receiving threats
, but I'm a bit wary about how much weight to confer on that either. Moreover,
Wikipedia:Perennial sources#Newsweek (2013-present) states that post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable
.
AleatoryPonderings (
???) (
!!!)
01:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
So Murphy and her family & staff were threatened for holding up Biden's transition. In her letter to Biden, she included this. I think this must be included in the article. Greenknight dv ( talk) 04:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I see there are still two {{ NPOV}} tags on this article, but I can't recall what the dispute was from last month. Are there still neutrality problems, or should we remove those? AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 16:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I've reverted the addition made in this edit as I don't consider it to be due weight given that it is sourced only to a primary source (the inspector general report), which does not even mention Emily Murphy by name or office aside from saying that she created a team to "coordinate" the audit requests and her response to the memorandum. Furthermore, the report is primarily about the response team itself, and again, doesn't make accusations against or really any claims about Emily Murphy other than that she was part of the decision to create the team. Given that I could find no secondary sources (such as news articles) which report on this memorandum, or expand on her involvement, I do not consider that inclusion of this is due weight in this article at this time. I have included the removed text below for discussion. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 03:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Removed text: In January 2021, the Inspector General reported that "GSA is impeding oversight of its
COVID-19 activities", has "compromised the integrity of information provided by GSA personnel, and has delayed and limited the audit team's access to requested information." Murphy "defended the work of the CAL Team, but neither made any claims of privilege nor offered any new or compelling information to refute [GSA's] findings."
and citation:
"Alert Memorandum: GSA Is Impeding Oversight of Its COVID-19 Activities" (PDF). Office of Inspector General, U.S. General Services Administration. January 15, 2021.
Does the second photo of her actually add anything here? I'm wondering if we can just get rid of it? It just seems sort of random. Also it doesn't do her any favors. —valereee ( talk) 03:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | 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 |
Missvain ( talk) 23:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
On November 23, 2020, after the state of Michigan certified results, Murphy issued the letter of ascertainment.
And source it to the Baltimore Sun article.
Comments? —valereee ( talk) 00:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The source used has "apparent winner" in quotes in its headline, as do lots of other headlines and the quote also appears in the body of some articles, such as The Toronto Star, but this phrase does not appear in Murphy's letter which is careful to say nothing of the sort: "As you know, the GSA Administrator does not pick or certify the winner of a presidential election. Instead, the GSA Administrator’s role under the Act is extremely narrow: to make resources and services available in connection with a presidential transition. ... I have determined that you may access the post-election resources and services ... The actual winner of the presidential election will be determined by the electoral process detailed in the Constitution." (emphasis added by me) Our content cannot parrot inaccuracies in normally reliable sources (many based on a single AP report). -- Mirokado ( talk) 02:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the response, @ Xaosflux:. The origin of the phrase "apparent winner", if not sloppy editorialising from PA, may have been this earlier statement from GSA, reported in The Washington Business Journal: "Murphy does not pick the winner of the presidential election, the GSA said in a statement, she only ascertains that apparent successful candidate once a winner is clear based on the process laid out in the Constitution." I propose that we insert "Federal transition resources for" so the sentence reads "Murphy ascertained Federal transition resources for Biden as the apparent winner on November 23, 2020." This says clearly what Murphy actually ascertained along with her justification for that ascertainment. The addition is already supported by the Baltimore Sun source with the phrase "... allowing Biden to coordinate with federal agencies on plans for taking over on Jan. 20." -- Mirokado ( talk) 04:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the When Joe Biden was generally acknowledged on November 7, 2020 to have won the 2020 United States presidential election, Murphy refused to sign a letter allowing Biden's transition team to access federal agencies and transition funds; this came as Trump refused to acknowledge Biden's victory.[2] Murphy ascertained Biden as the apparent winner on November 23, 2020.[3]
section seems a bit off:
Since I'm making suggestions here, I'm slightly involved now so won't be making the edit while the page is FP; would be nice to have someone review this section for a solid replacement paragraph to be reviewed by the next patrolling admin. — xaosflux Talk 12:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the following sentences are just too much, especially for a biography of a subject, given that: (a) the letter is now signed, (b) the net delay compared to last election was 15 days, (c) the source simply says the enumerated list of benefits was on hold for now, (d) benefits are now given, and (e) afaik reliable sources haven't said, in their own voice, the delay caused damages. In WP:10YEARTEST the "potential for damage" if it continues is irrelevant, but actual damage caused may be. afaik no RS are claiming that there was materialised damages, just the potential for them there to be, or attributed claims of the same by House Democrats / the Biden campaign. Plus, "refuses" is a bit of a strong word given (at a skim) it seems none of the sources use the word in this particular manner.
Quote I think needs to go:
By refusing to allow the transition to proceed, she prevented the incoming administration from obtaining office space, performing background checks on prospective Cabinet nominees, and accessing classified information. [1] [2] [3] Murphy's withholding of the letter also blocked Biden's transition team from accessing several million dollars in federal transition funds for salaries and other costs, establishing government email addresses, and working with the Office of Government Ethics on required financial disclosure and conflict-of-interest forms for incoming nominees. [1] [2]
This theorising on the delay may be more appropriate for Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results, but nothing was actioned and I think it's quite inappropriate here. Further, we already have a quote from the House Democrats letter in the next paragraph, which is more crisp and attributed, which addresses key weaknesses of delay (pandemic, economy, national security). ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
References
Rein
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).StandsBetween
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I think it's appropriate to reinsert Special:Diff/990115519, as a starting point or some variant thereof, content removed by Feoffer, which appears to be the consensus of reliable sources which discuss the subject as a whole, and the dilemma of the situation. I think excluding this deprives readers of essential context surrounding the ascertainment process in this unprecedented election cycle. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 22:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Murphy has been described as a "technocrat" and "policy wonk", without a strong affiliation with Donald Trump. Acquaintances described her thought process during the two weeks she declined to ascertain Biden's apparent victory as agonizing.
Hey, AleatoryPonderings! What were you objecting to? That was supported by the source. —valereee ( talk) 14:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The letter to authorize President-elect Joe Biden's transition arrived late Monday — but it is an unusual document that strained to avoid acknowledging his victory. The General Services Administration's administrator, Emily Murphy, wrote to Biden on Monday, 16 tumultuous days after most US news organizations acknowledged him as the winner. (Insider and Decision Desk HQ called the election one day before, on November 6.) Later Monday, President Donald Trump tweeted that he was "recommending" that the transition go ahead — though Murphy said she came to her decision independently.
Detailed analysis of the GSA letter, by Business Insider. Right cite ( talk)
WaPo calls the letter " unusually personal". Worth adding into the final sentence? —valereee ( talk) 20:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The letter failed to refer to Biden as President-elect, nor did it say she explicitly was granting ascertainment. But it allowed Biden to start the transition and gave him access to $6.3 million in government funding provided under the law, officially ending the 16-day standoff between an obscure federal agency head and the next US president.
Detailed analysis of the standoff between the GSA and the Biden transition. Right cite ( talk) 04:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I just reverted a series of edits by Greenknight dv which added a statement based on the following refs:
I think this edit adds
WP:UNDUE weight and possibly involves
WP:SYNTH, because neither of sources in question identify who was supporting whom (it's hard to know how we would tell, in any event). We could possibly say after receiving threats
, but I'm a bit wary about how much weight to confer on that either. Moreover,
Wikipedia:Perennial sources#Newsweek (2013-present) states that post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable
.
AleatoryPonderings (
???) (
!!!)
01:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
So Murphy and her family & staff were threatened for holding up Biden's transition. In her letter to Biden, she included this. I think this must be included in the article. Greenknight dv ( talk) 04:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I see there are still two {{ NPOV}} tags on this article, but I can't recall what the dispute was from last month. Are there still neutrality problems, or should we remove those? AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 16:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I've reverted the addition made in this edit as I don't consider it to be due weight given that it is sourced only to a primary source (the inspector general report), which does not even mention Emily Murphy by name or office aside from saying that she created a team to "coordinate" the audit requests and her response to the memorandum. Furthermore, the report is primarily about the response team itself, and again, doesn't make accusations against or really any claims about Emily Murphy other than that she was part of the decision to create the team. Given that I could find no secondary sources (such as news articles) which report on this memorandum, or expand on her involvement, I do not consider that inclusion of this is due weight in this article at this time. I have included the removed text below for discussion. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 03:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Removed text: In January 2021, the Inspector General reported that "GSA is impeding oversight of its
COVID-19 activities", has "compromised the integrity of information provided by GSA personnel, and has delayed and limited the audit team's access to requested information." Murphy "defended the work of the CAL Team, but neither made any claims of privilege nor offered any new or compelling information to refute [GSA's] findings."
and citation:
"Alert Memorandum: GSA Is Impeding Oversight of Its COVID-19 Activities" (PDF). Office of Inspector General, U.S. General Services Administration. January 15, 2021.
Does the second photo of her actually add anything here? I'm wondering if we can just get rid of it? It just seems sort of random. Also it doesn't do her any favors. —valereee ( talk) 03:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)