Talk:Lurita Doan/Archive 1

Archive 1

removed opinion

It's generally not a good idea to write a factual article based on opinion. Here is the reference I removed.

• (opinion) Fighting Gov't Waste: An Act Of Terrorism? [1]

Kgrr 22:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources WP:SOURCE

"NTMI is responsible for approximately 80% of the security and surveillance technology protecting the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico" [citation needed].

I could not find anything except for a a UT Alumni article to back this exceptional claim. 80% supplier is a very very high market penetration for any business, especially government. In a competitive field such as technology, a market penetration of 30% is extremely good. Please find a credible source to back this rather exceptional claim.Kgrr 14:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not that exceptional a claim. The Federal Government has earmarks for the percentages of contracts that must go to minority and woman owned businesses. Most businesses are owned by multiple people, so very few are majority owned by minorities or women; as a result, that portion of the contracts tends to be given to shell businesses, essentially written off as an overhead expense. An actual productive business owned by a minority woman would have a very big advantage when bidding for government contracts. Welcome to the crazy world of government contracting. Warren Dew (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hatch Act violations

This information needs to be worked into this article. Badagnani 07:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Biased and inaccurate

This article appears to be biased and inaccurate. I saw this which claimed:

" there is an engaging page devoted to Doan on Wikipedia, the "free encyclopedia" online. [...] It seems she saved taxpayers a bundle of money right off the bat, according to the anonymous contributors: "Within three months of taking office, she took measures to reduce the cost of government travel and saved taxpayers $3.6 billion in the process," one line of the entry says. The page also suggests that some of the questions about her activities in office are overblown -- at least "according to the March 28, 2007 report on the proceedings." That would be the GOP report on the proceedings: The Wikipedia entry quoted from the report, which said: "The massive expenditure of Committee resources throughout this inquiry -- 14,086 pages of documents from the General Services Administration (GSA) and 14 so-called voluntary transcribed 'interviews' of government employees from as far away as Boston and Denver -- has failed to establish that the Administrator of General Services engaged in any form of misconduct." The page cites the same GOP report to exonerate her on allegations in the special counsel's report to the president. The highly critical report by the Democrats is not emphasized."

So I checked out a claim: The article says "she took measures to reduce the cost of government travel and saved taxpayers $3.6 billion in the process[7]" but that's only half the truth. The source says that the GSA claims that it spent $3.6 billion less than full price airline fares; not that it spent $3.6 billion less than was spent the year before. In other words it is biased self flattery by the agency. I'm sure this is not the only flattering half truth in the article. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting to find out if the rates previously paid by the government were full fare rates. Back when I worked for the government, they had blanket contracts with airlines at specially negotiated rates - that were sometimes higher than full fare. I always figured that the airlines in question were headquartered in districts of powerful congressmen. Warren Dew (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The "Controversies" section requires some editing, in light of POV concerns raised by the Washington Post blog Government Inc. [[2]] Citing Republican findings - exclusively - and misrepresenting them as a "report," claiming "little if any aspersions were borne out" is a clear display of bias. Either the Democrat oversight report should be discussed, the report should be identified, or all passages and claims made from the Republican report should be deleted. Happysomeone (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like the editor responsible for this, Chiphi5, has some explaining to do. [3]Happysomeone (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It is funny that this Wikipedia article itself has become the subject of coverage by a Washington Post reporter. Westwind273 (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone from D.C. also has been editing. [4] -- SEWilco 19:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• As I proposed, I'm going to make a few "Minor" edits in an attempt to make the article slightly less POV. It would be helpful the "Controversies" section were better sourced and editors discussed their changes here on the talk page before edits are made.Happysomeone (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Career

I've removed some information from this section because the claims made were not supported by the sources provided. I'd be happy to restore this information if we can find some sources that do make these claims. I wish to caution editors to not make claims that aren't supported by the sources. Rklawton 21:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Bloch Reference

The bits of the WP quote beginning with "Currently, the U.S. Special Counsel Scott Bloch..." is of questionable relevance to the article at hand. The remainder of the WP quote is more appropriate to an article about Scott Bloch than about Lurita Doan. qitaana (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP Discussion

See Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons/noticeboard where concern about the neutrality of the article is being raised.

Considering that the issue in the controversies section is already noted in the General Services Administration entry, I'm inclined to say that the controversy section should be trimmed down. As it is, the section is convoluted and doesn't give a sense of the interagency/political dispute aspects of the issue.Swimandrow (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Swimandrow, I'm not sure I understand how the two points you raise relate to the neutrality of the article. Rather, it seems you are raising concerns about relevance and whether this item is best suited here or elsewhere (I'm inclined to believe they belong on both - with a shorter version on the GSA article). I agree that the section is long-ish, but that is not a reason in itself to edit. As to your second point, would you please propose a revision that gives a sense of the "the interagency/political dispute"? Kind Regards --Happysomeone (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

→The reason I think that the controversies section potentially has neutrality issues is that Doan was an administrator of an obscure governmental agency and was never found guilty of anything in a court of law or in front of congress, was never disciplined and was let go for what appears to be an interagency personality conflict (more on that conflict later). Given that there's nothing extraordinary or superlative here, I'm not sure these controversies merit noting in an encyclopedic context beyond the fact that there was a bit of controversy and then she resigned, for those that were happy to see her go, keeping the controversies section is a bit of delightful schafenfreude. It's mildly interesting, but doesn't seem to rise to any historic or scholarly value.

Regarding the inter-agency personality conflict, it is well documented here in her own testimony, here , here and here that after she called out the Office of Inspector General for having off-budget funding and not participating in formal audits, things began to get ugly. The Inspector General then turned around and began questioning a $20,000 contract that was never awarded, but put Doan in a bad light and began the congressional inquiries, of which nothing happened. Additionally, it was suspected by the Minority in the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that the Inspector General was leaking documents to the press:

“The Administrator has raised concerns that the details of private intra-agency meetings and investigations are being leaked to newspapers as part of a plan to publicly harm her, and to disrupt her efforts in leading GSA. Through counsel, the Administrator, has written to the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency, the Executive Branch entity with oversight responsibility of inspectors general, to raise serious charges regarding possible leaks to the news media by the Inspector General. During the course of the Administrator’s interview with The Washington Post on January 17, it became apparent the reporters had been provided confidential and protected documents and information from the IG’s investigative file on the Administrator.”

I'm going to take a crack at rewriting the entire section, to integrate the inter-agency squabbling and hopefully deal with the NPOV issues. Swimandrow (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm saddened to see this opportunity is apparently being squandered. I strongly disagree with the following POV characterizations:

1) "Doan was an administrator of an obscure governmental agency," 2) "was never disciplined and was let go for what appears to be an interagency personality conflict" 3) "doesn't seem to rise to any historic or scholarly value."

Discussion: First to point (3): This is an encyclopedic entry concerning a Mrs. Lurita Doan. It is a narrowly defined article that plays, as an appointee of a Federal employee of an agency responsible for billions of dollars of taxpayer monies, into the broader tableau of the Bush administration. I've also read your proposed revision in the next section (below) and strongly disagree with the POV demonstrated there. Your first statement (1) is prejudicial and therefore fatally flawed. It taints the merit of the following (of which some appear to be well grounded) arguments in the proposed revision of the "controversies" section. The fact that you believe her position and agency are obscure is irrelevant concerning the neutrality of an article on Lurita Doan. Second, it is true that she was never found in a court to have violated any law (2). This is, however, due solely to the fact that the agency responsible for prosecution is the Office of the President (as she is a Presidential appointee, and not under the Merit Systems Protection Board's purview). It is therefore disingenuous to suggest in this way that this is nothing more than "interagency personality conflict." This conflict reaches into the top tier of our government. The article, as it now stands and properly cited, demonstrates Doan was found in violation of Federal law by an investigative body and should be left unedited. Instead of attempting to "trim down," you instead suggest expanding POV material which highlight Doan's arguments in controversial GSA decisions rather than afford scrutiny; and propose removing all mention of potential Hatch Act violations. This would be the same as removing similar mentions for other presidential appointees (i.e. Alberto Gonzalez, Scott Jennings, Monica Goodling et al.). This an entirely inappropriate edit and I'm disappointed with the results here. Again, I disagree with this proposal in the strongest terms.--Happysomeone (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see below for a second revision of the controversies section. Swimandrow (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Slightly off topic from the BLP Discussion, although relevant, the last sentence of the opening paragraph is potentially libelous. The only reported reason for the resignation request was Doan’s claim that her disagreements with the GSA IG had become, “a distraction,” but that assertion has never been verified as the cause for the resignation request. Even the NY Times article used as the reference doesn't give a concrete reason for her resignation. I am changing it to conform to BLP guidelines. Please leave any feedback on my talk page. AbejaAbajo (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. Good catch, AbejaAbajo. Perhaps this has alleviated BLP concerns? If so, I would propose a removal of the NPOV notice in the article, perhaps next week. --Happysomeone (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed controversies section

So here's my crack at adding some sense to the controversies section. Hopefully this will take care of the NPOV issues but still tell the relevant story. Please leave comments on my talk page. I hope to post this sometime next week and get rid of the NPOV notice. Swimandrow (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

During her tenure, some of Doan’s actions as administrator were subject to congressional hearings. These hearings did not result in any disciplinary actions or sanctions against her. Led by Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Congress investigated allegations that Doan overstepped her authority when in the fall of 2006, Doan became involved in an effort to determine whether five major contractors should be suspended from doing business with the federal government for failing to turn over rebates on travel on government contracts.

Another part of the investigation focused on Doan’s proposal to reduce the budget of the Office of the Inspector General by $5 million. The Inspector General, Brian D. Miller had reported that the audits, which aim to ensure that the government is getting the best prices for goods and services, had saved taxpayers more than $1 billion over the past two years, while Doan contended that the budget cuts were part of an attempt to end the off-budget practice of the IG receiving additional monies from GSA departments in excess of its congressionally authorized budget.

Further allegations came to light in January 2007 story in the Washington Post regarding a proposed no-bid $20,000 contract with Diversity Best Practices, a consulting firm run by Edie Fraser, a woman whom Doan had a prior business and personal relationship with. The proposed contract was for an analysis of how the GSA could improve on its record of awarding government contracts to minority and women-owned businesses. The proposed contract was dropped without any work being done or any money exchanged before the committee could convene hearings.

During the course of the hearings, it was noted that someone in the IG’s office leaked official and private documents to the media.

“The Administrator has raised concerns that the details of private intra-agency meetings and investigations are being leaked to newspapers as part of a plan to publicly harm her, and to disrupt her efforts in leading GSA. Through counsel, the Administrator, has written to the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency, the Executive Branch entity with oversight responsibility of inspectors general, to raise serious charges regarding possible leaks to the news media by the Inspector General. During the course of the Administrator’s interview with The Washington Post on January 17, it became apparent the reporters had been provided confidential and protected documents and information from the IG’s investigative file on the Administrator.”

The hearings completed in March 2007, Chairman Rep. Waxman and Ranking Member Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) issued separate findings that split along party lines.

Doan was also accused of a violation of the Hatch Act. Doan and other political appointees at the GSA received a January 26, 2007 luncheon presentation regarding polling data from recently completed 2006 midterm elections. Investigators stated that Doan may have violated the Hatch Act when she reportedly asked “How can we help our candidates?” It was noted in official testimony that during the discussion at the luncheon, it was raised that such conversation may be inappropriate and the dialogue immediately ended. The Office of Special Counsel investigated the matter and recommended in June 2007 that Doan be “punished to the fullest extent” for the alleged violations. The White House declined to take any action against Doan.

Doan also faced questions about her involvement with the extension of a contract involving Sun Microsystems. Doan expressed her concerns about factors that may provide disincentives for companies to do work with the federal government in a Sept. 7, 2007 letter to Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), Doan also raised questions about the credibility of the GSA Office of the Inspector General and how that credibility gap can adversely affect relations with vendors, stating:

“Over the past several months, I have heard complaints questioning the ability of the GSA’s IG to conduct independent reviews in an unbiased manner. Contributing to this perception has been a troubling inability within the office of the IG to safeguard testimony and hold in strict confidence information provided. Companies involved in audits, as well as whistleblowers across the agency, must have the confidence that the IG will safeguard information provided. Sadly, there have been several instances where confidential information provided to the GSA IG was immediately leaked to media outlets, and I am concerned that these occurrences have fostered the impression that the IG’s credibility is compromised”

Sun Microsystems announced at the end of its long-standing contract with the federal government in mid-September 2007.

President Bush asked for and received Doan’s resignation on April 29, 2008. While the White House did not publicly state the reason for this action, Doan was quoted in several media reports saying that intra-agency disputes with IG Brian D. Miller had created a “distraction.” Doan also stated that "It has been a great privilege to serve our nation and a great President."

• This is significantly clearer than what is currently there. I would try and add more references that are currently in the article to bolster the section, but besides that it looks good. AbejaAbajo (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• I couldn't disagree more. Please refer to my comments in the above section.--Happysomeone (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Revision

Please feel free to leave comments or suggestions on my talk page. Swimandrow (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

During her tenure, some of Doan’s actions as administrator were subject to congressional hearings. Led by Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, in the spring of 2007 Congress investigated allegations that Doan overstepped her authority in the fall of 2006, when Doan became involved in an effort to determine whether five major contractors should be suspended from doing business with the federal government for failing to turn over rebates on travel on government contracts. Waxman’s investigation also focused on Doan’s proposal to reduce the budget of the Office of the Inspector General by $5 million. The Inspector General, Brian D. Miller had reported that the audits, which aim to ensure that the government is getting the best prices for goods and services, had saved taxpayers more than $1 billion over the past two years, while Doan contended that the budget cuts were part of an attempt to end the off-budget practice of the IG receiving additional monies from GSA departments in excess of its congressionally authorized budget. Waxman investigated further allegations came from a January 2007 story in the Washington Post regarding a proposed no-bid $20,000 contract with Diversity Best Practices, a consulting firm run by Edie Fraser, a woman whom Doan had a prior business and personal relationship with. The proposed contract was for an analysis of how the GSA could improve on its record of awarding government contracts to minority and women-owned businesses. The proposed contract was dropped without any work being done or any money exchanged before the committee could convene hearings. During the course of the hearings, it was noted that someone in the IG’s office leaked official and private documents to the media.

“The Administrator has raised concerns that the details of private intra-agency meetings and investigations are being leaked to newspapers as part of a plan to publicly harm her, and to disrupt her efforts in leading GSA. Through counsel, the Administrator, has written to the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency, the Executive Branch entity with oversight responsibility of inspectors general, to raise serious charges regarding possible leaks to the news media by the Inspector General. During the course of the Administrator’s interview with The Washington Post on January 17, it became apparent the reporters had been provided confidential and protected documents and information from the IG’s investigative file on the Administrator.”

The hearings completed in March 2007, Chairman Rep. Waxman and Ranking Member Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) issued separate findings that split along party lines.

In June of 2007, Doan was accused of a violation of the Hatch Act and called in front of Waxman’s committee. Doan and other political appointees at the GSA received a January 26, 2007 luncheon presentation regarding polling data from recently completed 2006 midterm elections. Investigators stated that Doan may have violated the Hatch Act when she reportedly asked “How can we help our candidates?” It was noted in official testimony that during the discussion at the luncheon, it was raised that such conversation may be inappropriate and the dialogue immediately ended. The Office of Special Counsel investigated the matter and recommended in June 2007 that Doan be “punished to the fullest extent” for the alleged violations. The White House declined to take any action against Doan.

Doan also faced questions about her involvement with the extension of a contract involving Sun Microsystems. Doan expressed her concerns about factors that may provide disincentives for companies to do work with the federal government in a Sept. 7, 2007 letter to Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), Doan also raised questions about the credibility of the GSA Office of the Inspector General and how that credibility gap can adversely affect relations with vendors, stating:

“Over the past several months, I have heard complaints questioning the ability of the GSA’s IG to conduct independent reviews in an unbiased manner. Contributing to this perception has been a troubling inability within the office of the IG to safeguard testimony and hold in strict confidence information provided. Companies involved in audits, as well as whistleblowers across the agency, must have the confidence that the IG will safeguard information provided. Sadly, there have been several instances where confidential information provided to the GSA IG was immediately leaked to media outlets, and I am concerned that these occurrences have fostered the impression that the IG’s credibility is compromised”

Sun Microsystems announced at the end of its long-standing contract with the federal government in mid-September 2007.

The Congressional hearings did not result in any disciplinary actions or sanctions against Doan, but President Bush asked for and received Doan’s resignation on April 29, 2008. While the White House did not publicly state the reason for this action, Doan was quoted in several media reports saying that intra-agency disputes with IG Brian D. Miller had created a “distraction.” Doan also stated that "It has been a great privilege to serve our nation and a great President."

• We did not reach consensus on this, Swimandrow. Taking this step and removing the WP:NPOV tag was premature. --Happysomeone (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I went ahead with the revision after two weeks of silence, I know there are arguments in the wiki community about whether or not silence is consensus, but I felt that after making the changes to the first revision and not hearing any other input/objections from anyone else to go ahead and boldly edit. I welcome other proposed revisions and feel that this edit has been unfairly reverted. Swimandrow (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversies Section Rewrite

Why was the entire article apparently rewritten without prior discussion and consensus, in this edit? Badagnani (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments above, I went ahead with a bold edit and I feel that a wholesale revert is unfair. Swimandrow (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I raised this issue on the BLP Noticeboard for further discussion. Shakespeare1616 (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Such edits should be made in a measured, rather than unilateral manner, utilizing "Discussion" and edit summaries so that other editors may see what is being changed or removed, and why. Properly sourced and accurate text should not be removed in most cases, simply because the editor feels it reflects poorly on the subject of the article. Badagnani (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • This is exactly my point. The original basis for a proposed edit was "trim down" the article. This is a challenging task, given the complicated background and actions during Doan's administration as GSA chief. I wanted to see what improvements could be made on the existing collection of "sourced and accurate text" -- not a wholesale rewrite in one fell swoop. Swimandrow, I'd recommend a different approach here and also add that you never addressed by my concerns on your talk page when you said "the fact that there was a bit of controversy and then she resigned, for those that were happy to see her go, keeping the controversies section is a bit of delightful schafenfreude." That gives me significant pause re: WP:AGF. I am also concerned with the tone and context of your edits vs what is presently available. As you say, "My main goal became putting the events in a logical order, something that this section currently lacks." Here is the last graph about her resignation:

"In the face of recommendations by the United States Office of Special Counsel that Doan be "disciplined to the fullest extent"[22]and an ongoing congressional investigation,[23] on April 29, 2008 Doan submitted her resignation in accordance with a request from the White House.[9] Doan stated that "It has been a great privilege to serve our nation and a great President."[24]

Here is your proposed version of her resignation:

The Congressional hearings did not result in any disciplinary actions or sanctions against Doan, but President Bush asked for and received Doan’s resignation on April 29, 2008. While the White House did not publicly state the reason for this action, Doan was quoted in several media reports saying that intra-agency disputes with IG Brian D. Miller had created a “distraction.”[39] Doan also stated that "It has been a great privilege to serve our nation and a great President."[40]

Neither is perfectly NPOV, but I feel the latter does have some serious issues here with WP:UNDUE and WP:ASF. As I have explained before, it is a logical fallacy to assert or conflate: lack of "disciplinary action" against Doan but the president asked her to resign anyways, and while the president wouldn't say, Doan said she thought it was because of a dispute with her IG. Do you really think the latter holds more "logical order" than the former?

I also still remain confused as to your logic that the section "doesn't seem to rise to any historic or scholarly value," yet you compose an over-long rewrite because "I decided to err on the side of too much information." --Happysomeone (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • For the record, I am not editing this section because I feel that it reflects poorly on the subject, I am editing this section because if reflects poorly on Wikipedia. It is poorly written, not in any logical order and makes it difficult to see the time line of events. I posted two revisions above and did left for discussion for weeks and didn't hear anything. I will concede that I could have been more measured in doing so, but now at least we have some discussion on this topic. I proposed an overly long rewrite because I was hoping someone here could help me trim it down, I wanted to make sure I had all the facts in there as neutrally worded as possible. In this case you will find that I did not remove properly sourced or accurate text, I did however re-order that text and added four additional references. All references that are in the original section remain, with the exception of a NYTimes article (current footnote 9), but I would be happy to add that back in. The additional references that were added are from the Washington Post , GovPro.com, GovExec.com and Townhall.com. These are NPOV sources and I tried my best to present it that way. I stand by my prior statement that, through the long lens of history, this section is being given too much weight. You are welcome do disagree with me on that point, but I managed to put aside my opinion in proposing a rewrite, please do the same. Thanks! Swimandrow (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Swimandrow, please address my second point from above, which runs from "I am also concerned with the tone and context of your edits vs what is presently available" to "Do you really think the latter holds more "logical order" than the former?" We need to reach a starting point with regard to three specific sub-guidelines: WP:SOURCES,WP:UNDUE and WP:ASF. Thanks.--Happysomeone (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I do believe that it holds better logical order. In my second proposed language above I cite when and where and why the OSC called for her to be “punished to the fullest extent” following the Hatch Act allegations. I think it speaks volumes that the Bush Administration didn’t follow Congress’ recommendations and instead of keeping admitting wrong and disciplining their appointee, they didn’t fire her, they asked her to resign. The fact that there was a long lapse between the recommendation and the resignation shows that the Bush Administration would rather keep a lackey in place than deal with the criticisms of that appointee. The language that is currently in the controversies section is missing any reference to this time gap and seriously lacks any logical or even chronological order. RE: WP:Sources As I mentioned above, I used all but one of the articles currently in the section and added a few more from reliable, third party sources. I tried to stay away from using too much of the congressional testimony and first party narratives to keep it as fair and balanced as I could. I do not see why you are objecting to the sourcing of my proposed revision. Could you please elaborate more? RE: WP:Undue I tried my best to be as NPOV as possible and I don’t see anything wrong with the language I presented. Please address exactly which passages/sources you feel are not neutral. RE:WP:ASF Again, please point out which passages you feel are opinions. Below in responding to Shakespeare1616 you have taken issue with mentioning why Doan felt that she was asked to resign. In the GovExec.com article Doan said why she thought she was let go. That is not an opinion, it’s a fact that she thought that.Swimandrow (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I strongly disagree and do not support Swimandrow's reasons for doing the edit unless they are truly "editing this section because if reflects poorly on Wikipedia." As a friend of the Doan family, I do think that her position was/is important and despite some of her shortcomings and unfortunate circumstances in the position, it is historically and scholarly relevant. However, the Controversies section as it stands now and even the proposed re-write, both need serious improvements. First, saying Doan tried to move forward with no-bid contract after hearing from GSA general counsel is factually inaccurate and potentially libelous. Second, keeping the original language in this section appears to link the special counsel recommendation with Doan's resignation when in fact, the resignation came almost 11 months after the special counsel's recommendation. While I don't agree with the reasons Swimandrow proposed the edits, the proposed language in for the section tells a better story and presents the facts in a manner that makes sense. I urge other editors to ignore the reasons for the edits and look at the proposed language with a neutral eye. Because I have a conflict of interest I have tried to remain on the sidelines, but there are several things that need to be fixed immediately. Shakespeare1616 (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Shakespeare1616. I appreciate the fact that you prioritized your concerns. I also appreciate that you appear to have taken the time to familiarize yourself with WP:CONFLICT. Your concerns, however, intrigue me. Starting with your first point, please pass along any verifiable evidence that rebuts the claims you are worried "is factually inaccurate and potentially libelous." On your second concern, 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."--Happysomeone (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I failed to clarify in my previous point: the language in the current controversies section (not the proposed language) is potentially libelous.

    Waxman alleged that Doan "attempted to go forward with issuing a $20,000 no-bid contract to Fraser even after GSA General Counsel Alan Swendiman repeatedly advised that the contract be terminated due to its questionable legality."

    This is an allegation and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. WP:UNDUE Also, the citation used here is not as good as it could be. There is Congressional testimony given by Doan and others involved in these hearings that was given under oath and is a better reference. In documents supplied to the House Oversight Committee for the March 27, 2007 meeting [5], it is clear that once Alan Swendiman, General Counsel for the GSA, informed John Phelps that the contract could not be executed on August 3, 2006, Phelps emailed Doan on August 4, 2006, writing "Lurita: I'm going to have Donna Hughes-our in-house contracting officer- terminate order in writing to keep this straight….I will also let Edie's [Fraser ed.] folks know…" Doan replied two minutes later, "Sounds like a good plan." A September 6, 2006 email from Edie Fraser to Doan clearly shows Fraser's displeasure regarding the failed contract. "…want relationship with GSA and will keep delivering as you know. But I have spent so much time at GSA from the report planning to these sessions with ZERO $$ How do we solve" Additionally, testimony and documents provided by Kevin Messner, Associate Administrator back up these assertions. [6] As does the minority Staff Report. [7] The libelous language in the current version of the controversies section must be changed.Shakespeare1616 (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My feelings on this matter break down as follows: 1)I also agree with Shakespeare1616 regarding the motive for the change. Doan was an important player in the Bush Administration and should have an Wikipedia article that reflects her service. 2)Like Happysomeone, would like to see evidence of "potentially libelous" information in either the current language, but more specifically in the proposed language. 3)I disagree with Happysomeone's assertion that what currently stands as the controversies section is WP:ASF. What is currently the controversies section is convoluted, missing dates and poorly sourced-particularly the Sun Microsystems portion. Despite the hamfisted way Swimandrow went about making the changes, the proposed language and sourcing is an improvement. 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. In the current language of this section there is no mention that it took nearly a year for the White House to ask for her resignation. In this way, the proposed language is superior. In the third paragraph of Swimandrow's second revision of proposed language:

"The Office of Special Counsel investigated the matter and recommended in June 2007 that Doan be “punished to the fullest extent” for the alleged violations. The White House declined to take any action against Doan. "

Then in the final paragraph:

"The Congressional hearings did not result in any disciplinary actions or sanctions against Doan, but President Bush asked for and received Doan’s resignation on April 29, 2008."

5) I support the proposed language and would like to encourage discussion on how to incorporate it. Please feel free to leave any feedback on my talk page. AbejaAbajo (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Reply posted at your talk page, AbejaAbajo.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

POV Check/Proposal to Remove NPOV Notice

So, it's been over half-a-year now since a group of editors, who I note have not made any further contributions to Wikipedia since that time, posted an NPOV notice here and attempted a substantial and unsupported re-write of the article. It appears the discussion has ended and at this time I would like to remove the NPOV notice.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, what's missing here is an un-jaundiced eye. Not saying I'm sick and tired of this, it would just be great to get some fresh blood, some fresh eyes on this article. I still stand by all my previous positions, but think the article could use some minor help. So I'm going to ask for help via the POV check noticeboard instead of completely removing all NPOV notices/tags.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)