Talk:Firing of Shirley Sherrod/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Recent edits - December 2014

After reviewing the cited source, I've reverted this edit, as it does not faithfully convey what the cited source conveys. The edit refers several times to "new emails", yet the only emails discussed are those from 2010. The edit inserted content which says "WaPo revealed new emails...", which isn't at all conveyed by the cited source. (Did CNN "reveal" these emails only to this Wikipedia editor?) The edit oddly creates a new header for subject matter that already exists earlier in the article. The edit also included editorial commentary not conveyed by the cited source (i.e.; "But the new set of emails show more involvement"). Per WP:BRD, I've reverted the edit and await further explanation of these issues. A good starting point would be what, exactly, is the editor hoping to convey to the reader from this cited source? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

A new photo of Abraham Lincoln was discovered last September. Abraham Lincoln was not alive in 2013. The linked article clearly states:

"Both the White House and Vilsack have repeatedly said that the agriculture secretary made the decision to ask for Sherrod’s resignation without White House input. The e-mails, along with earlier e-mails obtained by the Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act in 2010 and 2012, make it apparent that Vilsack wanted Sherrod to leave the department and ordered her resignation."

The article then quotes directly from one of the emails:

“The WH is involved and we are waiting for the go-ahead to accept her resignation. I suspect some direction from WH soon.”

It is true that what is written on the Washington Post does bounce back and forth between multiple new emails and one new email, that part is left ambiguous. But if your primary point of contention is between new email in the singular and new email in the plural, it makes me wonder what your real agenda is for focusing on such a small thing and why you don't want the larger issue included in the article. That the AP or the Washington Post or whomever else held these emails back for several years does not make my edits any less valid - like I said, Lincoln was not alive in 2013. As to the new header, that is also incorrect what you wrote. This article as it existed on December 20th was reliant only on the old released information - reliant only on denials from "Both the White House and Vilsack". Section 1.1(where you originally misplaced the link) is misleading in its totality about the White House having nothing to do with it. Now we know otherwise with these newly surfaced emails. 96.59.92.70 (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Some minor points of contention:

A new photo of Abraham Lincoln was discovered last September.

Then it is a copy or imitation. Did you mean an old photo of Lincoln was newly discovered (or rediscovered)?

...does bounce back and forth between multiple new emails and one new email...

No, it does not. The article never once references "new emails" or even one "new email". It only mentions "newly released email", newly released only to the general public perhaps, because all parties in the lawsuit have had all of these very old emails for years now.

That the AP or the Washington Post or whomever else held these emails back for several years...

Incorrect. The plaintiffs, defendants, the court, and all of the legal representatives have had all these old emails for years during the closed court case. They were made public the Friday before your cited news report. WaPo didn't "release new emails" as you say; they learned about them at the same time the rest of the public did.

Section 1.1...is misleading in its totality about the White House having nothing to do with it.

Perhaps you have misread? It doesn't say that. It says there "was no evidence that the dismissal of Sherrod was under orders of the White House", but that they were kept apprised of the situation - they were always "involved". (See this source already in our article.) Nothing in the additional old emails mentioned in your cited source changes or refutes that.

And with those minor corrections out of the way, I will re-ask the major question that you have left completely unanswered: what, exactly, are you hoping to convey to the reader from this cited source? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

This article as it stands is NPOV. If you were to read the CS Monitor article and compare it to the Washington Post article, the CSM and WaPo articles themselves conflict each other because the CSM article only contains old outdated information based on Vilsack's POV. The Wiki article is only based on the old information and outdated POV. I can easily illustrate this. According to the old information from CSM:

Emails obtained by The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act don't contradict Vilsack's assertion that he made the decision to oust Sherrod as the department's director

Yes they do, they do now. The new emails are absolutely contradictory of Vilsack's prior assertions, which is directly stated in the WaPo article. See quoted above, here is what the WaPo wrote about it:

But a newly released e-mail sent by Vilsack himself suggests that he was awaiting a decision from White House officials on how to proceed.

These two quotes from the two sources conflict. Vilsack was waiting for White House approval, he did not make the decision alone to oust Sherrod as previously known and reported by CSM, he waited for the go ahead.

BTW, I did not leave your question unanswered, it is extremely unfair of you to say that. I gave you an answer you didn't like. Even you are now using the word "new" in your own way, which is a step in the right direction. 96.59.92.70 (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

These two quotes from the two sources conflict.

Incorrect. You seem to have left out the rest of the CSM quote and the WaPo quote; I'm sure it was accidental, so let me assist:

Emails obtained by The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act don't contradict Vilsack's assertion that he made the decision to oust Sherrod as the department's director of rural development in Georgia after an edited video of her making supposed racist remarks surfaced on a conservative website. But they do show the White House and Agriculture Department officials were sharing information and advice from the first minutes after the scandal began to emerge until Sherrod submitted a resignation hours later at the request of a senior USDA official.

But a newly released e-mail sent by Vilsack himself suggests that he was awaiting a decision from White House officials on how to proceed. “She has offered her resignation which is appropriate,” reads an e-mail from the initials “TJV” to Dallas Tonsager, then the USDA undersecretary of rural development and Sherrod’s boss. Vilsack’s middle name is James. “The WH is involved and we are waiting for the go-ahead to accept her resignation. I suspect some direction from WH soon.” ...Justice Department attorney David Glass replied to the judge that “when there is a reference to the White House was involved, what it means is the White House liaison was involved.” The USDA’s White House liaison, Kevin Washo, was in touch with the White House through the night, according to the documents. In another newly released e-mail, a White House aide writes to Valerie Green of the White House presidential personnel office, saying “USDA is looking for direction — can someone contact Washo?” Green replies that she is “reaching out now.” Green writes Washo asking him to loop her in, “Please. Please. Please.” The department that night accepted Sherrod’s resignation...

You'll note that the White House was still asking the Ag Dept. to "Please. Please. Please." ... loop them in to what was happening (noted in both the WaPo and the CSM source). No conflict. You'll also note that Vilsack requested her resignation, and received her resignation, all before contacting his White House liason. No conflict. And neither CSM or WaPo indicate that the White House instructed him on what to do, only that Vilsack tried to keep them in the loop and requested input from their legal counsel to make sure everything was handled properly. No conflict.

I did not leave your question unanswered ... I gave you an answer you didn't like.

My apologies; I must have missed it, and still do not see it. Could you please restate here what, specifically, it is you want to convey to the reader from your cited WaPo source? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that email, it is one of many points of conflict. It can't be that Vilsack is emailing the White House waiting for direction while at the same time the White House is emailing Vilsack and asking him to keep them in the loop, that they have no idea at all what's going on. These two don't mix. If the White House was really seeking more information, they probably would've been checking their emails. And likewise, if Vilsack was awaiting a directive from the White House on what to do then he also would have been regularly checking his emails. It cannot be that both were neither emailing nor checking their emails. But it's not about the speculation, it is about what we have. What we have, and what has been reported, is White House involvement. We will have to wait for even more emails to come out.(which should again ripple into the Wikipedia article)

Both the WaPo source, as well as the CSM source make it very clear that there was more White House involvement than originally thought. Don't you think that's kind of ironic that here we are and one again we have a major media outlet pointing the finger back at the White House? The Wikipedia article should more clearly reflect these new facts, which is what I have consistently said all along. If it makes you feel better to include Kevin Washo, then you should/could have simply entered that name into the edit I made. It is what the article says. 96.59.92.70 (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

What factual information do we have after the AP/WaPo story that we didn't have before? You and I can speculate all day on whether it is possible that two agencies were emailing each other during the same 24-hour period (it is not only possible, but probable; you give the US govt. too much credit for efficiency). Of course WH staff were involved, it's their job. Are you confusing that with "involved in the decision to fire Sherrod"? Vilsack had already ordered her resignation, and received her resignation, before the emails we're discussing were sent -- it even says so in the email quoted by WaPo. And while the article says Vilsack sent an email saying he was waiting for WH (or White House liaison, who is just another part of USDA) direction, the article is careful to not say that he ever received direction from the White House. So perhaps you are correct that we will have to wait until all of the emails and other court documents are made available before we'll have actual new facts about what transpired. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

archive-link is effed?

wiki/Talk:Resignation_of_Shirley_Sherrod/Archive_1

the page exists. Using the link brings me there.. But at this moment the link in the small box above directs to a talk page thats new??? I dont really have any idea how to fix it. But I think it would be very helpful to have a redirect that actually redirects where it should.

Fixed --76.14.40.2 (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Length of videos

This is regarding ]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Firing_of_Shirley_Sherrod&diff=734071794&oldid=734071554 this edit]. Since a major part of this issue centers on selective editing, the length of the videos is relevant and important. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

So, like I said in my edit summary, put it in the text. If it's relevant and important, why would you put it in a footnote? Let's look at the specifics. First footnote is used thus:

On July 19, 2010, two different video clips [A]

A.^ Video excerpt's precise length: 02 minutes, 38 seconds.[76]

We have a problem here - neither the position of the footnote nor its content actually makes any sense at all.

Second footnote is used thus:

The full 43-minute video[B]

B.^ Complete video's running time: 43 minutes, 15 seconds.[77]

So why not simply say "The full 43 minute 15 second video"? What advantage do you see in giving the reader just a part of the "relevant and important" information, and expecting them to jump to the end of the article and jump back to get the rest of it? 5.151.178.168 (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, fix it, then, don't just remove the content completely. Grayfell (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Fixing and removing completely are sometimes the same thing. Why didn't you improve it further? Why did you prefer to revert to a worse state? 5.151.178.168 (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Because I don't think it's worse, obviously. Grayfell (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You don't think it's worse that footnote A bears no relevance at all to the text where it's referenced and that footnote B wastes the reader's time? That's surprising to me. 5.151.178.168 (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The length of the excerpts is relevant, and it's most relevant in the place where the excerpts are first mentioned. Why wouldn't it be? You want to move either note to the body, fine, but they are significant to the issue, so their removal is non-neutral. Grayfell (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Our discussion is over. 5.151.178.168 (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)