Talk:Monica Goodling

message: This source details for the first time some of Goodlings personnel actiivities. Not yet incorporated into the controversies section. Perhaps someone can create a paragraph out of the relevant non-standard inquiries and assessments Goodling conducted. -- Yellowdesk 11:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details of Personnel activities 

message: A little perspective on experience vs. education. -- Yellowdesk 13:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourced information about Regent  and evangelical influences 

message: It was asked: Is it remarkable that Goodling attended religious colleges?
I think the better question is: Is it remarkable that Goodling attended THESE religious colleges AND THEN was NONETHELESS (or perhaps BECAUSE OF) able to no only get any job at all--considering the academic standing of these institutions--but was able to get one of the highest jobs in the land.
Here's another question: How many other non-evangelistic law schools were able to place a grad in one of the highest positions in government that controls a multi-trillion dollar economy so few years after receiving accreditation? 
Answer: None.
Why was this one able to do it?
How many other lawyers out there enrolled at a law school the year it became accredited and then was able to get such a job? Not many if any. 
Note that her class (other than her because she transfered in) only attended the school as an accredited school for two of thei three years. Her classmates spent one year of their 3-year education at an unaccredited school. What kind of students does an unaccredited TRADE school--which offers almost zero job prospects--attract? Not the top students or even the savvy stdents--who would spend--borrow-- that kind of money to live on if not just for tuition--whe the prospect f getting a job is so low, and there are accredited schools with extremely low entrance requirements in every state?
The thing is, Goodling's chosen education path tells more about her than anything else.
She is a highly view-point-motivated person.
And she is the highest person in government to invoke her Fifth Am. right since Oliver North during the Iran-Contra scandal of the Reagan administration. RUReady2Testify 18:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability continued

message: I agree with User:Staecker — that whatever coverage we give to Goodling's education should fully conform to WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER
*I strongly disagree that the religious nature of her school is "obvious" to English speakers.
*I strongly disagree that the wikipedia articles should only be directed to native speakers of English speakers.
*I strongly disagree that an individual's notion of "obviousness" is a good yardstick for whether material merits coverage in the wikipedia.  What is "obvious" is highly, highly subjective.  Further, in my experience, when I hear a claim that something is so obvious it doesn't require explanation, it is almost always a sign that, either, (1) my correspondent can't explain themselves; or, worse (2) they are actively trying to trick me.  My experience that when I have tried to gently push my correspondent to try to explain something they claim is too obvious to require explanation they are likely to respond with ridicule, or burst out in a rage.
The assumption that readers can tell the nature of the institutions from their name, is highly Americo-centric, and is a grave disservice to readers from other parts of the world.  I live in Ontario, just across the border with New York state.  There are no prominent private, religious colleges up here.  This phenomenon is virtually unknown.  There were some private religious colleges up here fifty years ago that were not completely obscure.  Degree granting institutions requires an act in the legislature.  Most of the religious colleges decided to make some minor compromises in their mandate in return for accepting government funding.
So, please try to be more conscious that what seems universally "obvious" to you may, in fact, merely reflect your unconscious local bias.
I wrote an essay on further problems I have with claims of obviousness.  Geo Swan 15:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite a response to rebut an irrelevent throwaway line (that was in parentheses) that was completely non-essential to my position, and could therefore be disregarded.  In fact, I was supporting (and it seems you are, too) the suggestions of User:Staecker, viz.  we can note it's a Christian school, but how that school fared in a moot court competition in 2006, and other such details of Regent and Messiah, are not particularly relevant to this article. (Furthermore, it's not such a stretch to think that a person who is reading an article written in English understands English.  It's not like the word "Messiah" is a colloquialism) -- Sholom 13:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims of "obviousness"

message: I wrote above that I agreed with Staecker that the 
coverage of Goodling's educational background should fully comply with all the wikipedia's policies.
Compliance with these policies prohibits wikipedians from inserting their own opinions and interpretations of the institutions.  Quoting or paraphrasing opinions and interpretations that properly cited authoritative, verifiable sources is allowed, indeed, I believe, encouraged.
Similarly, I believe, quoting the institution's mission statements fully complies with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:VER, and is a good alternative for wikipedians who would otherwise be tempted to insert their own opinion.  Geo Swan 15:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many schools in the US are religious, but only one was founded by Pat Robertson, who is notable and I would suggest, so is his school.Suzukisue (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Quoting mission statements

message: In my opinion there is an important section missing from WP:NOT.  IMO there should be a section entitled WP:NOT#wikipedia is not a hagiography.  I regularly encounter other wikipedians who want to suppress the coverage of material they think reflects poorly on their faith, or their nation.  
I engaged in a long, long struggle to have the wikipedia cover the verifiable fact that dozens of the Guantanamo captives are being held because they were suspected of association with the Tablighi Jamaat movement.
Wikipedians who were admirers of the Tablighi movement routinely removed the US allegation.  When challenged over doing so, if they responded at all, they would defend their actions on the grounds that the US allegagions were flimsy, ridiculous, displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the non-political nature of the movement.  They pointed out that the movement had millions of pilgrims participating in its exchange programs per year.  
My position was that the opinion of wikipedians on the credibility of the US allegations was irrelevant.  Insertion of opinions on the credibility of the allegations was a violation of the wikipedia's policies, unless they were written from a neutral point of view, and cited authoritative, verifiable sources.  In my opinion when adminers of the Tablighi movement were POV-pushing when they removed material that properly cited verifiable, authoritative sources.
The wikipedia should not be a hagiography.  No one should let other wikipedians, no matter how well meaning they might be, suppress material that they think reflects pporly on they nation, faith, or pet cause or favorite personality, if that material was properly cited and written from a neutral point of view.
Similarly, it can be documented from verifiable, authoritative sources that, for the first months of his administration at least, Paul Bremer only hired people who had submitted their resumes to the controversial Heritage Foundation.  There were wikipedians who fought diligently to protect Bremer's reputation, without regard to the wikipedia's policies.
I am concerned here, because, on the surface at least, the efforts to suppress material about the religious nature of Goodling's education remind me of these earlier attempts to subvert the wikipedia's policies.
*I call on those who remove material they consider controversial to supply a detailed explanation here on the talk page.
*I call on them to consider raising their concern here on the talk page first, and attempting to initiate a dialogue.  Unexplained excisions, or poorly explained excisions, serve only as a trigger for ugly edit-warring.
*I call on them to consider good faith rewrites of the material that raised their concern, instead of excision.
Cheers!  Geo Swan 15:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points above by Geo Swan, and I agree entirely (especially with "obviousness", now that you bring it to my attention (Christ's College, Cambridge, anyone?)). I'm sorry if my edits have seemed hagiographic. I still think that mission statements are a bit too much for this article, but I'm willing to give that up if there's consensus. Staecker 15:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think mission statements are too much for this article.  They belong in descriptions of the colleges themselves.  If someone wants to make a point that those from Christian law schools were primarily hired -- that's fine.  But including the mission statement, or where a school finished in a moot court competition (particularly when its years after Goodling graduated) is way too tangential. -- Sholom 13:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not a hagiography

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Monica Goodling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071127151516/http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6625855,00.html to http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6625855,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Monica Goodling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070503080116/http://news.nationaljournal.com:80/articles/070430nj1.htm to http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070430nj1.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070406/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070429120447/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18308547/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18308547/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070618031659/http://www.gonzaleswatch.com:80/2007/05/11/judge-oks-granting-monica-goodling-immunity-for-testimony-in-us-attorney-firings-probe/ to http://www.gonzaleswatch.com/2007/05/11/judge-oks-granting-monica-goodling-immunity-for-testimony-in-us-attorney-firings-probe/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/GoodlingII070523.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Monica Goodling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070430nj1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926222952/http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/others-charge/ to http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/others-charge/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070601015025/http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/goodling-5th/ to http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/goodling-5th/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930154847/http://www.dailyindia.com/show/138245.php/Former-Gonzales-aide-under-investigation to http://www.dailyindia.com/show/138245.php/Former-Gonzales-aide-under-investigation
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gonzaleswatch.com/2007/05/11/judge-oks-granting-monica-goodling-immunity-for-testimony-in-us-attorney-firings-probe/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070601170045/http://www.gonzaleswatch.com/2007/05/30/doj-inspector-general-glenn-fine-expands-improper-hiring-probe-of-goodling/ to http://www.gonzaleswatch.com/2007/05/30/doj-inspector-general-glenn-fine-expands-improper-hiring-probe-of-goodling/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified