Talk:Lurita Doan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Hatch Act violations
This information needs to be worked into this article. Badagnani 07:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
