User talk:Elprussian

Stylistic point for 1st and 2nd paragraphs:

The first two paragraphs in this "Investigations" section refer to the same event and should be treated as one single incident. The link given at the end of the first paragraph is to the same article linked for the second paragraph. The typical reader is likely to be mislead to think that there were two incidents here and that these separate incidents are documented by two different sources. These two paragraphs should be combined and one link deleted.

POV not neutral in 3rd paragraph:

The third paragraph of this section is not talking about an investigation. It's talking about reform legislation that was blocked. Furthermore, the current write-up seems to favor Chuck Hagel. Why is his name mentioned, without party affiliation in a piece that makes much of party affiliation, without mention of the other cosponsors (Elizabeth Dole [R, NC], Sen. John McCain [R, AZ], Sen. John Sununu [R, NH]). Given that McCain is a 2008 candidate for President, it's strange not to mention his involvement in sponsoring this reform legislation. Even if McCain was not the primary mover, his involvement is surely as noteworthy as Hagel's, because McCain is a more newsworthy figure on this issue and will be a higher profile figure historically. No neutrality in POV.

POV seems biased in 4th (and last) paragraph:

The last paragraph reads as follows...

On April 18, 2006 home loan giant Freddie Mac was fined $3.8 million, by far the largest amount ever assessed by the Federal Election Commission, as a result of illegal campaign contributions. Freddie Mac was accused of illegally using corporate resources between 2000 and 2003 for 85 fundraisers that collected about $1.7 million for federal candidates. Much of the illegal fund raising benefited members of the House Financial Services Committee, a panel whose decisions can affect Freddie Mac. Notably, Freddie Mac held more than 40 fundraisers for House Financial Services Chairman Michael Oxley, R-Ohio.

This paragraph links to MSNBC (in turn crediting the AP) as a source. The FEC report on which the AP story should have been based would be a much more creditable source. [1]

NPOV is called into question here by what looks like "cherry picking." With all of the controversy, why pick this one case (perhaps because some money was given to Republicans... and it's election season)? A more prominent case would be the investigation Freddie's accounting fraud, a case in which Freddie settled by paying $50 million in fines (rather than $3.8 million), and Freddie executives personally paid $800,000 in penalties.[2] Why feature one investigation without the other?

Also, the existing Wikipedia entry focuses on Michael Oxley (here, unlike above for Hagel, providing the party affiliation). The insinuation is that Oxley (R-Ohio) was "on the take," but there is no supporting evidence. Did Oxley vote in a way that favored Freddie? If so, the writer needs to provide that information objectively. NPOV is further called into question by this insinuation that Oxley is dirty without any mention that the top recipients of campaign contributions from Freddy and Fannie were Democrats (Obama being number 2, even though he's been in the Senate for less than 4 years), and that (from 1989-2008) the Democratic party got more in contributions from them than the Republican party.[3]