Talk:Emily W. Murphy

removal of content

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)

It's completely false to characterize the standards of the transition as being a dispute between "historians" and "Biden's aides". The only RS cited are from 2000 and obviously say nothing about events in 2000. It's textbook synth to cobble together 20 year old sources and apply them to current events. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, omg, weird...I swear I had a current article open lol. The older articles were just to support lengthy legal battles. I've got [[1]], does that work? —valereee (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the content cited from sources from 2000 that make no mention of Murphy. That's classic WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. There are plenty of 2020 sources from which we can draw. The 2000 Bush v. Gore analogies seem very attenuated to me in any case. Neutrality^talk 18:11, 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)

• What condensed version would you propose? Neutrality^talk 19:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  Neutrality, I'm wide open to how we deal with it, but I do think we have to deal with 2000. —valereee (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'm also open to discussion of wording but agree it needs to be included. I suggest:

The Trump administration and its allies argued that the president should not begin the transition process during court challenges, citing the 2000 election in which there was a delay of several weeks related to a court challenge. Biden's aides responded that the dispute in the 2000 election was very different than the current election because the 2000 dispute involved only one state and only about 500 ballots, far less than in the 2020 contest.

References

Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

We cannot use those news articles from 2000, because they make no mention of Emily Murphy. That's a WP:SYNTH issue. The New York Times article is from this year and does mention Murphy, but the only Bush v. Gore reference is a single unnamed "White House official." Neutrality^talk 00:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. First of all, the NYT is a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking, so when it says "a White House official" (as well as the mention of "Trump allies") it is not necessary to name a specific person to make that information relevant. When the Trump administration referenced the 2000 election, and the Biden people responded to that, then the 2000 election becomes relevant and it's not necessary that the source mention Murphy. The section is about Murphy's role in the transition and the Trump and Biden perspectives on that role, so the sources are acceptable. What Murphy does is largely under the direction of Trump. It is highly unlikely that she would do anything contrary to Trump's directive. So effectively she is Trump's agent in the process. If he tells her not to release a determination that Biden won the election, it is unlikely that she will do so until all the recounts are finished and certified and the court cases are settled. She is an integral part of this story, so references to the GSA's action or inaction are very much related to Murphy, whether she is named or not. You're stretching the intent of WP:SYNTH beyond reason. And if there is not significant objection here, the sources can be used. Sundayclose (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The NYT is of course a reliable source; the concern is not reliability here, but due weight. If the comparisons to 2000 are truly significant, then I'd like to see some additional material actually reflecting that; a passing mention seems rather paltry. Neutrality^talk 02:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The comments from the Trump and Biden organizations' about the 2000 election are not "paltry". Given the controversy and widespread attention to Murphy's actions, there is no WP:WEIGHT problem with two sentences about the 2000 election. Sundayclose (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality, I disagree that the articles from 2000 represent SYNTH if they're being used only to support the exact dates of the previous event, which is what I was inserting them for. They can't be used to support that people are referring to that event w/re this one; I agree that assertion requires current articles that mention both events. —valereee (talk) 11:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Whether we call it original research, synthesis, or simply off-topic, it still troubles me to use material in a biographical article that makes no mention of the actual subject of the article. If the comparison or the "exact dates of the previous event" are really relevant, it seems clear that there would be sources that directly draw upon the historical analogy. What about putting this material in United States presidential transition? I would have no objection to such details in that article. Neutrality^talk 14:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality, the thing I thought was important was the length of time between the election and the GSA certification in 2000, and I wasn't finding the dates in the new sources. Maybe it'll show up in one eventually, or some statement like "six weeks between the 2000 election and the GSA certification" or something. I thought it was important to readers in understanding that this has happened before, and for a not-completely-dissimilar reason, and that (so far) this isn't a completely unheard-of length of time between the election and the GSA determination. Leaving it out felt unfair to the article subject, a living human who is likely between a rock and a hard place. :) But I do get what you're saying, and certainly we could at least tag them with better ref needed. And if all here disagree with me, it's fine. :) —valereee (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no comparable similarity between the 2000 election and this one. In one case, there was a margin of hundreds of votes in one state which was subject to a recount in a race which had not been called. The 2020 race has been called, Biden has an insurmountable lead in several states, and no credible claims of fraud have been presented. There is absolutely no duty on us to legitimize what this person is doing with WP:FALSEBALANCE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The issue of discussion here is not whether Wikipedia is trying to right great wrongs. Wikipedia (with us as its contributors) is not trying to "legitimize" anything related to this election. We are not declaring who won or lost. We are not confirming or denying fraud (at least at this point). The voice of Wikipedia is not being used to confirm or deny comparisons between the 2000 and 2020 elections. We are simply reporting the issues that have become notable. That happens thousands of time every day on Wikipedia, as it should. The Trump and Biden organizations have made claims of similarity and dissimilarity between the 2000 election and the 2020 election, and that is notable and should be included here. Sundayclose (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, of course. Sorry for being unclear. In the case of what Emily Murphy is doing, it's a similar situation in that she's apparently not certifying until the legal battles have been decided. —valereee (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This is not a debate between the Biden and Trump campaigns. This is a debate between reliable sources (who have called the election and clearly say there is no evidence of fraud) and the Trump campaign (which is lying about the election). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC) 

Snooganssnoogans, sorry, ed conflict. Again, of course. That is the debate. But that's not what this article is about. This article is about a person, and she's apparently not going to certify this election until the legal battles are over, and that's happened once before in modern US politics, and the Washington Post, NYT and WSJ have all mentioned that fact now. I think that means we have to mention it, too. —valereee (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, no response so I've boldly added a sentence that maybe will feel more neutral. If anyone objects, let's talk! —valereee (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that is neutral. Sundayclose (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The content that you two are edit-warring into the article absent of consensus draws a false similarity between the 2000 election and the 2020 election. The content misleads readers and feeds into bonkers anti-democratic conspiracy theories about the election results (which you two are apparently fine with and are willing to violate WP:BRD over). The only circumstances under which that content should be in the article is with a thorough explainer of all the ways that the 2000 election is not similar to the 2020 election. Wikipedia should not be a disinformation outlet. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "anti-democracy conspiracy theories". Please watch the personalized comments about what personal opinions about such theories might be held by anyone in this discussion. Focus on content, not contributors please. Sundayclose (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The 2000 election was about hundreds of votes in one state that decided the election, which were being recounted and which revolved around legitimate legal disputes and interpretations that could swing the entire election.[2] That is why that election was not certified. The 2020 election was a landslide for Biden where the election has been called by all relevant parties, the results are in the tens of thousands in every swing state, the results are so large that they would neither swing with a legal challenge nor is a single state necessary for the victory, and not a single legitimate claim of largescale fraud has been presented. The content that you two are edit-warring into this article draws a false equivalence between the two elections, and serves the purpose of misleading readers and feeding into anti-democratic conspiracy theories about largescale fraud. Unless your edit-warring gets reverted, the readers of this article will walk away more confused and misinformed than when they started to read it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no "false equivalence" in the article. There is simply a summary of Murphy's handling of this situation and the GSA's statement about prior precedent in the 2000 election. The voice of Wikipedia is not claiming a precedent; the GSA is. Sundayclose (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

I want to echo Valereee's objections. And I'll go further than progressive, I'll admit it: I'm a liberal, even a socialist. But the facts need to be covered by Wikipedia regardless of personal political views. Furthermore, the article now includes the perspective about the differences between 2000 and 2020, not just what has been characterized as a "false equivalence". Both perspectives were in the article before all of this disagreement with claims about "legitimizing" Trump and "conspiracy theories". Sundayclose (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• MelanieN, I think The difference is that the 2000 election result was genuinely in doubt until December 9, hinging on a very close count in one state probably needs attribution, maybe a quote? —valereee (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Valereee. I attached a current reference, and someone Sundayclose has now added a better one which includes this paragraph: 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)

(edit conflict)@Valereee and MelanieN: I had already added a citation that would cover "close count in one state"; I believe that is sufficiently sourced. I just added a citation from the New York Times about the outcome of the election being in doubt. I'm not sure if that's sufficient. It doesn't matter to me if the phrase "genuinely in doubt" stays in the article, but I think it is a valid statement, as I remember the tension leading up to the Supreme Court decision. Sundayclose (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I just now added "Biden's aides stated that the dispute in the 2000 election was very different", which was in the article before this dispute and is supported by a citation already in the article. Feel free to tweak the wording. Sundayclose (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I have tweaked it a little, and I think what we have now should probably be acceptable. Valereee, any issues? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, I think The difference is that the 2000 election result was genuinely in doubt until December 9 is still editorial in WP voice without attribution/quote. —valereee (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I'm not sure if this addresses your concern, but this source (cited in the article) says, "news of a recount in Florida that threw the election's outcome in doubt". Sundayclose (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

((ec) I will see what I can to to reword things, then. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, I removed that sentence, and added to an earlier sentence a mention that the Supreme Court ruling decided the election. Does that fix the problem? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 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)

Yes, it does to me, too. I didn't want to remove it, but it feels both like a nonsequiter and sort of synth-y. As well as a bit pointy. —valereee (talk) 06:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you think a solution would be something like 2020 GSA certification of the United States presidential election? All of this stuff could belong in that, and we could probably just do a couple sentences here with a main article template pointing to it? —valereee (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

dob

Hey, Jonathunder, I'm not sure that source is sufficient for a blp dob? —valereee (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

removal of content 2

AHC300 let's talk —valereee (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

DOB

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)

Smoresandmore292, a single mention isn't enough; for privacy reasons, WP requires a dob be published widely in reliable sources, and that one doesn't even give the year. —valereee (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The year is found in multiple other sources. I find it hard to believe when she gave an interview under "birthday of the day" that the date is private. Jonathunder (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Jonathunder, policy says it needs to be widely reported in reliable sources. Politico is the only one, and it doesn't even give the year. This is a blp privacy issue. —valereee (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this isn't someone we need a DOB on. Feoffer (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

changes

Feoffer I don't think that's a neutral improvement. Let's talk. —valereee (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Valereee What do you feel violates neutrality? You reverted two changes. One change was for readability just stating in simple terms that Biden won. The other change was to add well-sourced material about national security concerns and Murphy's jobsearch, both of which are widely discussed in reliable sources. Do you object to stating Biden won, including those two well-source facts, or just the wording? If the latter, what wording would you propose? Feoffer (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Feoffer, you're adding stuff that doesn't have anything to do with her but is instead about the transition. Anthony Fauci, the government's leading infectious disease expert, warned the delay was "obviously not good" from a public health perspective, while President-Elect Biden argued "more people may die" as a result of the delay for instance. I think it's undue weight; the article is now mostly about the presidential transition. Most of that section needs to be covered in the transition article rather than here. It probably needs a couple of sentences here, plus the main article template. It looks like you've also moved the content about letting her employees have a drink after work into the lead...I'm not sure that's even important enough for the lead, much less with that amount of coverage? —valereee (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Never worked for the govt, have you? The GSA allowing after-hours drinking on govt property is a HUGE issue with liability ramifications of epochal proportion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.1.214.5 (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The point is that in a biography, this is trivia. I don't see any evidence that she even got a slap on the wrist for it. It is not one of the most important things to know about her, so doesn't belong in the lead. —valereee (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Murphy is a central focus of international attention this week for her role in the transition, the bio has to reflect that. Additionally, the lede absolutely should briefly summarize the reported public-health implications of Murphy's actions. As more and more experts weigh in, it's increasingly clear that info belongs in lede. Feoffer (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Feoffer, I think we're going to have to disagree about this. I think we're probably going to need to ask for further opinions at BLPN. —valereee (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I've opened a section at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Emily_W._Murphy_BLP_NPOV_concerns —valereee (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Links to IG reports

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)

I agree with you on this assessment, Feoffer. Missvain (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Feoffer, no objection to adding them back, they just can't be used to prove the information is noteworthy for inclusion. OR doesn't prove this information is noteworthy enough for inclusion in the lead. —valereee (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2020

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.

---

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 discussion above 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.

McCaskill quote

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)

I'm easy. Feoffer (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

removal of content 22Nov

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.

I don't think any of these sources even mention the article subject? —valereee (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Replaced with a source that makes explicit mention of the subject (although this is NOT a standard for inclusion) Feoffer (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Feoffer, wtf?! Of course it's a standard for inclusion that the subject of the article be at minimum mentioned in the source. What are you even talking about? —valereee (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

There's no rule that every single source must mention the subject of a bio. Earlier someone removed anodyne sources about the GSA as not mentioning Murphy by name -- that's not the standard. Feoffer (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Consensus needed

@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)

Yes, I went ahead an reverted the massive deletion as we continue to generate consensus to hone balance. Feoffer (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, I don't think the alcohol and testimony stuff is important enough for the lead. Belongs in the body for sure. The stuff about how her delay could possibly affect the future seems mostly synth and crystal ball. It can be included if in the future anyone mentions it and her in the same article and puts the blame for it on her for whatever actual fallout there is. But right now these articles are "Murphy is delaying the transition work" and "delaying the transition could mean XYZ." No one is even saying "Murphy's actions will cause XYZ." —valereee (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Feoffer it us up to you to provide WP:ONUS. Let's discuss. —valereee (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, ditto. Let's discuss. —valereee (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to build a consensus for your changes, but don't just hammer them, they're controversial. Feoffer (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Feoffer, the onus is on you to build consensus for inclusion, per the policy I linked above. Do you understand this policy? —valereee (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

No, your edits are controversial, and I'm astonished that you're trying to force them into a BLP while they're disputed. See WP:ONUS. Additionally note that this is not an article on some event or institution, it is a high-profile biography of a person, and whereas on some 'normal article' the worst that happens is some readers are misled, on a BLP the subject is affected. Second, it is misleading to use "per talk" when there is no consensus on talk, that is a red herring. As for the edits, I will quote one part of what you are trying to keep forced in: 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)

What is Synthy about the Emily Wang Murphy profile?? Emily Webster Murphy is discussed in detail in the source. (And for that matter, what POV is its inclusion even supposed to be pushing???? We have no idea what the public was saying -- presumably the feedback was mixed.) Feoffer (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Feoffer, Emily Wang Murphy has zero do with the article subject. At best this is trivia. In WP:TENYEARTEST no one will think that should be included here. —valereee (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

"Zero to do with article subject", Well, the Washington Post disagreed with your assessment when they published it. But we started with the claim it was "synth" and now we're down to "trivial", so we're making good headway. Including the Wang profile is NOT trivia -- it's a RS commenting on the notoriety and international attention focused on Murphy. Indeed, the Wang mention nicely rounds out the quote about Emily Webster Murphy "struggling with the weight of the presidential election", don't you think? Feoffer (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:V is not the only core content policy we have. Your statement is arguing that all trivia is false. That is not true. Trivia can be perfectly factual and verifiable, and we still should not include it. The comment about the weight of the election is still present in the article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Feoffer, the Washington Post -- and all media -- have to feed the beast. The fact one of them does an article mentioning this is not enough to tell us the incident is noteworthy. If WaPo and NYT and WSJ all do an article on it, it's worth mentioning. —valereee (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

That part is not the POV, that's the indiscriminate part. My edit summary lists WP:10YEARTEST as the reason for some of the removals. The fact that some people are badgering who they thought was Emily Murphy is barely relevant to this article

The POV is sticking out like a sore thumb when you read the article prior to removals. Read that section and tell me the impression of the subject you get. Then read the current article and tell me the impression of the subject you get. Then tell me what information is now missing that caused the change in said impression. Finally, please tell me how exactly said missing information is the accurate portrayal of the consensus of reliable sources in the context of this article's subject. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Controversial deletions

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)

• "Effect of refusal" By refusing to allow the Biden administration transition to proceed, she prevented the incoming administration from obtaining office space, performing background checks on prospective Cabinet nominees, accessing COVID-19 vaccine information, and accessing classified information that might be needed to respond to emergencies the Biden administration confronts.

At some point in the past, I had struck words "that might be needed to respond to emergencies the Biden administration confronts" as non-neutral. Don't need that portion added back, but the rest of the sentence is well-supported. Feoffer (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• "been described as attempted coup" The Trump administration's attempt to undermine the election result, including its refusal to cooperate in the transition, has been described as an attempted coup.

• "Emily Wang Murphy" 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.

• "Job search" On November 16, ABC News reported that Murphy was making inquiries about new employment for 2021.

• "Self-inflicted" The Washington Post's Daniel W. Drezner took issue with that characterization in a piece titled "The Self-Inflicted Agony of Emily Murphy".

requested additions

• It would be helpful if you'd provide quotes from these sources that support specific additions to the article. Like, "quote x" from source 1 below supports "addition y" to section Z. We probably need to discuss each addition separately. —valereee (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Just look at the titles of the sources and you're good. Feoffer (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Feoffer, headlines are notoriously bad sources. They're written for clickbait and often don't get editorial oversight. If that's what you're relying on, stop now. —valereee (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Then read the articles yourself, dude. I'm not going to spoonfeed you one sentence at a time for you to whack me down until I get tired. Feoffer (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

So then you understand that what adding this information requires is just that -- that you explain exactly what's being proposed and provide clear sourcing for it? It's fine if you don't want to do that, but then we can't add it. —valereee (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Of the five sources, two are opinion pieces, one is a piece about a mistaken identity. The remaining two do not nearly convey what this article conveyed prior to the removals of that content. So far so good? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I mean, ya'll are the people who deleted them, so it's unsuprising you agree with yourself. Feoffer (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

This is starting to feel like a POV issue. Also, not a dude. —valereee (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Before I accuse someone of OR/Synth, I make sure that my accusation has weight. On the rare cases where I call OR and someone is able to produce a source I claimed doesn't exist, I'm legitimately humbled -- I don't just move on to the next reason WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As that pattern has played out repeatedly, it's clear the concerns about this article have little to do with complying with WP:OR, because my resolving OR concerns has yet to resolve any objections. Feoffer (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Job search is pure gossip and not encyclopaedic. It's also not an accurate portrayal of the ABC source, whose content is not focused on that point, and the job part only makes sense in the context of the whole "Trump appointees looking for a new job" bite. Mistaken identity is something that happens to every other person under the veil of scrutiny, not encyclopaedic - that's something I'd expect to see on the cover of The Sun, not on a person's Wikipedia article. "Self-inflicted agony" is not an accurate portrayal of the opinion piece, which on a closer look of it and of the writer I agree is worthy of inclusion, but not in the way that it was included. You took the headline and tried to add it as if it was the whole point of the article. The point of the article was the exact opposite, which opined on the tough position of the subject who is likely trying to do their best. I'm seriously concerned how you achieved the portrayal the article previously gave from that piece. Recusal you've addressed yourself. As for coup the source does not say what you're trying to portray with it, at least not in relation to Emily Murphy. We can discuss that one once you present us with a source that does. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• "Effect of refusal" should obviously be in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Keep it civil, keep it cool, folks!

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)

Do not fret, faith is one thing I never procrastinate on. It's the only thing that keeps us going :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Missvain, we're good. I don't think anyone here is not acting in good faith. —valereee (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The Coup

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)

I haven't read this, but I won't re-add anything. I would encourage you to not use misleading objections in your edit summaries that suggest your concerns could be resolved by better sourcing -- this clearly is not the case, and its very disruptive to send editors on snipe hunts or fool's errands for sources you have no intention of accepting. Feoffer (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It can be resolved by better sourcing. Better sourcing is not finding a source that actually has the word "Emily Murphy" (I'm surprised this statement was added originally without even that bare minimum). No, "better sourcing" means: it actually needs to verify the statement you're making, which is that Murphy's actions have been described as a coup ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You wanted a source that mentioned the subject, even though that's not the standard for inclusion. I found you one despite my extreme suspicion that you wouldn't actually accept the source you asked for, but would instead just keep moving goalposts. There's no deadline, we're not news, nobody's looking to wikipedia for up to the minute reporting on this, the article will get to where it needs to get as more eyes arrive. But all our time has value and no one appreciates it when you waste their time with eternally-moving goalposts. Feoffer (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

When I said "does not mention the subject" I didn't think I actually had to say, in preparation for your next edit, "does not mention the subject in this context". You have been here a long time, I presumed you understood that when you accuse a BLP of being described as staging a coup, you actually need a reliable source that verifies that the subject is accused of staging a coup. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

If this were an isolated incident of postmoving, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Feoffer (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a blatant violation of WP:BLP. Wikipedians are not supposed to be "connecting the dots" by combining sources to create conclusions. Wikipedia should never be the first to call somebody something this serious. If you want to add something, it's up to you to find a sufficient source. If you fail in that, you can't blame somebody else because they didn't explain everything that is and isn't acceptable in a source. --Rob (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

For context, my preferred wording simply said "The Trump administration's attempt to undermine the election result has been described as an attempted coup", I really should have restored that wording along with the additioanl sourcing, but the wording isn't what was at issue, there have been widespread accusations of OR and many requests for sources that were fulfilled only to have the goal posts moved to the point that I'm no longer interested in looking for more. Feoffer (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

There are no moving goalposts here; this isn't a competition or battle. The core content policies are where they've always been, and the content you added did not meet them. The revised wording you now suggest has no relevance to this BLP, and it creates an implication (that this subject is participating in said "coup") that is not supported by any reliable sources, as has become clear now. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

When you admit, above, that you're concerned about "POV sticking out like a sore thumb", I can respect that.   When you pretend this is about insufficent sourcing, it's galling.   Partisans ARE widely characterizing Murphy as complicit in a 'coup'. Seriously, have another another source, this time from Democratic outlet The Nation:     "In its blind obedience to Trump’s blatant coup attempt, the party has abandoned even the pretense of democratic principle—indeed, any principle other than holding on to power. [...] In the race for unadulterated political cowardice and buffoonery, the GSA’s Emily Murphy is surely a front-runner at this point. She will, I sincerely hope, have to live the rest of her life being made constantly aware of the fact that she, out of fear of becoming the butt of Trump’s Twitter trolling, collaborated in a fascist attempt to demolish the results of an election in which more Americans participated than ever before. "  Feoffer (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

That is synthesising two parts of a source, again, but at least we're getting closer to something which can verify the statement. Alas, even ignoring the fact that it doesn't support the statement, according to WP:RSP: 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)

It is a fact that partisans are making the claim, we all know that to be true, it's not original research or synthesis as you keep insultingly claiming. It just fails your POV check, which is fine, but don't pretend it's more than that. Feoffer (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• There is not support for including language about her involvement in a coup attempt at this point. Text on coups should not be restored. However, the lead should absolutely inform readers what the implications of her failure to permit the transition has: "By refusing to allow the Biden administration transition to proceed, she prevented the incoming administration from obtaining office space, performing background checks on prospective Cabinet nominees, accessing COVID-19 vaccine information, and accessing classified information that might be needed to respond to emergencies the Biden administration confronts." The failure to allow the transition is not trivial (as RS clearly note), and readers should be informed about why her actions are contentious and consequential. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

  Could you move that part into either the deletions section above, or a new section? Just so we have some organisation here, and we keep these discussions accessible for more uninvolved editors to hop into. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:46, 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)

I think you have still not read WP:ONUS as valereee suggested you do. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

When I show up to an established article, I never imagine WP:ONUS means I can delete anything I want until a consensus emerges to stop me. That's the ethics of a vandal, not a Wikipedian. Feoffer (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of alcohol/rooftop sex content, POV Whitewashing

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)

And I see we just lost FBI building controversy material too. Now that the purges have extended to material from long before I edited the article, I feel comfortable in calling this a POV whitewash. Feoffer (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Please read the reliable sources (CNN, NPR, Bloomberg and WaPo) I have cited, and then honestly tell me which is a more accurate portrayal of what they are saying: my rewrite, or the previous version? I mean, a one paragraph event (as I have eloquently described) was turned into 3 paragraphs of fluff that I cannot even make sense of when I read it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The way it was worded when it was originally added (which I have only now checked) is not the same as it was worded now. It was originally worded as providing context for a policy on drinking (which I have left in, by the way). That original diff is perfectly fine. However, the way it was worded when I removed it, under its own sub-heading and prioritised, portrays the issue as something it was not, and in a manner that reliable sources (like CNN) do not try to portray it in either. That article isn't even about her. Whoever (I haven't checked) amended the prose took an episode, where she, like every single agency official would, as a matter of routine practice, be asked to comment, and turned it into something it was not. To be clear, she wasn't the one having sex on a rooftop, nor are reliable sources saying she had anything particular to do with the incident.

The same, to a much worse level, applies to the FBI building episode, which I have spent some time researching and rewrote in a neutral manner. The verbosity is not just an eye-sore for readers, it is giving a misleading impression. And honestly I'm slightly annoyed here all in all, because it's starting to feel like whoever wrote some of these parts (I haven't checked the history, so I'm not saying it was you or anyone else in particular) has made no attempt to adhere to WP:NPOV. When I saw this article on BLPN I did not expect the amount of issues that there actually are. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

NPOV tag is fine with me, btw. Happy for other editors to discuss these changes. I believe they are an improvement, but I'd like to hear thoughts from other editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You believed the original article was non-NPOV, and you've now washed the article to match your POV without consensus. You have had no shortage of stones to throw, and you might have more empathy for my position if you spent more of your wikicareer adding to articles instead of purging them. Feoffer (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think the current article is quite critical of her, especially given reliable sources (eg CNN or Bloomberg) summarise her as having a rather uneventful career and being an ethical individual. If a one paragraph incident can be accurately summarised in one paragraph, rather than misleadingly as three of fluff, my view is that my change was constructive, rather than destructive. It took me a fair bit of time to research the events, to be fair. Contrary to popular belief, NPOV does not mean bloat with criticism to avoid accusations of "whitewash". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:25, 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.
In reply "my view is that my change was constructive" -- congratulations, that's how everyone feels, no one is so special that they get to edit-war to purge established material without consensus and demand the rest of us convince them not to make their changes. You made extensive VERY bold deletions, AleatoryPonderings objected, that should be the end of it until you get consensus. Feoffer (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC) There's a difference between my removals due to BLP violations, and removals as unnecessary content or rewrite of a section to better adhere to WP:DUE. The former all but yourself seemingly agree is a violation above. The latter is, of course, objectionable and others seem to be away, but I'm sure there will be a hearty discussion and amendment as appropriate - I do not expect it to be perfect. That being said, I'm not sure if you've actually read my rewrite of the FBI paragraph. All the criticism is actually still there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Replying to "difference between my removals due to BLP violations and removals as unnecessary content": you're damn right there is. If you had just removed the "coup" verbiage under BLP, fine -- but you'vet gutted the article of extensive verifiable information without consensus. Feoffer (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Again, I request you read WP:ONUS, which exists precisely to prevent what was happening here. And to be honest, my changes are not as broad as they appear, per the net diff. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC) In the span of 24 hours, you gutted the article by 30% AGAINST multiple objections. That's not onus, that's you WP:OWNing this article you just read. Feoffer (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC) That is the incorrect diff, of course, as it includes edits not by me, and does not include my re-addition at the end. If you wish to accuse me of something, please at least use the correct evidence (ie, "the net diff" I linked above) when you do so. Although, even 2 paragraphs of removal from that net diff are not mine but yours (eg the well-written, and actually very interesting, one from the CNN source) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

edit warring accusations

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)

I agree with your assessment. I think there are some other things remaining that are slightly UNDUE or should be trimmed as a matter of content, and perhaps some that should be reinserted, but nothing egregious enough left that warrants a 3RR exemption (also want to note that I did self-revert one of my removals earlier to stay on the conservative side of what's exempt, after a closer reading of 3RRNO). I agree the remaining items are appropriate to be, and should be, discussed. I normally follow 1RR as a rule-of-thumb when editing, but I think BLP violations (especially on high visibility articles) are a place for caution, especially when persistent and already at BLPN, so I think pulling this became necessary ;p. Good call on referring this to AN, out of caution. I'd be grateful for additional eyes on the matter, as I really don't think 24h ago was an acceptable place to be, never mind the other issues in history. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I agree with your concerns. I am not happy with what is happening here--not the tone (the "dude" thing"), and not the work of that editor. I'm about to hop over to AN, and I think it's time for a BLP hammer to be swung, perhaps. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:16, 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)

Thanks for the note Drmies I only came across this an edit request, and I'm hearing "breaking news" about this person now as well. I think that emotions are high on this subject right now, but I expect there could be other NPOV updates forthcoming and that the edit-request process will continue to be swift. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, she just sent "the letter" to start the transition into the Biden presidency. I've mentioned it briefly in the article in the lead and appropriate section. I'm actively monitoring activity here so hopefully things still stay calm, cool and collected. Missvain (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 November 2020

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)

 Partly done - that sentence was not supported by the reference, so has been removed completely. Readers can follow the wikilink to the GSA article if they want to know more about what the GSA is for now. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

She did it

• letter
• source

Missvain (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• I suggest we add at the end of the final para:

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)

Sounds good to me valereee! Missvain (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Missvain, at this point I consider myself involved. If you'd be willing to add that, it would be great. —valereee (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, ec. —valereee (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done No problem! Missvain (talk) 00:29, 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)

@Mirokado: we do normally need to rely on the RS's - the letter appears to point to Sec3 of 3 USC 102, pertaining to the "President-elect" -- so even if this wasn't an "ascertainment" it should at least be that the P-E has been "recognized" -- do you have a RS that states this better? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:11, 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)

My personal suggestion is something along the lines of "On November 23, 2020, after the state of Michigan certified the election results in that state in favor of Joe Biden, Murphy informed the Biden campaign that federal government transition resources would be made available to him." Ideally, this would be followed by a one-sentence description of what it actually entails (it's primarily government money, but also office space/etc) for reader information. While "ascertain" is the quoted word from the rules/regulations/laws/etc, it is absolutely incorrect both grammatically and factually in the way it's used in the article here (as well as the caption for the image). Murphy ascertains whether a person will be replacing the incumbent president or not, and who that person is. She does not personally "ascertain" any resources - the more proper word would be "assign" or "permit access to". On a side note, this is why edits should not be made to fully protected articles prior to consensus on the talk page - for multiple hours now, the article has used language that is both factually and grammatically incorrect, as weell as confusing to the average reader - which could've all been avoided if, per WP:FULL, consensus for the changes was seeked here before they were made by a lone administrator. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I won't be editing for the next few hours, I will be happy with anything following either of these suggestions. --Mirokado (talk) 05:28, 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:

• "refused to sign a letter" seems loaded - suggests she was given something to sign but declined to; doesn't this position create this letter - perhaps "would not initially produce a letter"
• "Murphy ascertained Biden as the apparent winner" -- follow from above, this seems loaded as well, but does seems to have some RS's supporting it, as this is a follow up to the preceding sentence, perhaps making it about what she literally did (provide the approval for resources by way of a new letter) and not getting stuck on the "ascertain" part would be better here?

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)

Edit fully-protected request

GSA Administrator Emily W. Murphy letter to Joe Biden notifying him of her decision to "ascertain" U.S. federal resources for transition of Presidency of Donald Trump to Presidency of Joe Biden.

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)

 Done Thank YOU! Missvain (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Can someone de-bold "Emily W Murphy" in the photo caption? Sticks out like a sore thumb. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I would support that, we should also add apostrophe-s, thus "GSA Administrator Emily W. Murphy's letter ..." --Mirokado (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Done De-bolded and added an apostrophe, good catch. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 November 2020

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)

 Not done I see nothing to support your claim that "it challenges the statement of the letter to Biden that Emily W. Murphy was not instructed by the executive branch", other than your own speculation. Sundayclose (talk) 02:43, 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)

Concur with Sundayclose: 173's speculation is very OR. But whatever illogical justification led to the proposal, the suggestion to include the tweet actually isn't a bad one, so long as we don't include any OR about how it "challenges the statements" of others. Feoffer (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 November 2020 (2)

In the section about the 2020 election, the line "Before the 2020 election, Murphy had reportedly spoken with David Barram, who was President George W. Bush'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)

You need sources, but I don't see why this fact (the appointing president) matters here ah, I see. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed protection and consensus required provision

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)