Talk:Nicole Avant

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: [1]. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. —BorgHunter (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Updated Page

I have updated Nicole Avant's wikipedia page to correct misinformation and add references. Csamsid (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC) I am editing this page from the Public Diplomacy section of U. S. Embassy in Nassau, The Bahamas. I will be correcting several pieces of information that are no longer correct including,but, not limited to Ambassador Avant's current occupation. I will edit the first half of the article and provide her official biography under the heading Ambassador. I request that after my changes are made that it does not revert back to the current article as the current article is full of errors. -Courtney Sidky U. S. Embassy Nassau, The Bahamas.

Whitewash?

(Response: The entire IG report is included in the post - references to an inaccurate summary from a blogger were removed as they intentionally mis-characterized the report, Ambassador Avant's very successful tenure and the timing and motivation of Ambassador Avant's resignation. You will see in the history that those references have been removed many times and others with unclear motivations continue to add them.)

I see no mention of the very dubious circumstances under which she left her ambassadorship (extended absences etc). Is this page bieng whitewashed bu the Embassy? Unless I receive a reply I will add in that material. Also, I don't see any attempt whatsoever at a neutral POV.221.10.57.39 (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

--- If you look back in the history you'll see that the Inspector General's report was accurately summarized, but the summary was later deleted, replaced with characterizations that make it sound like an overall positive report. If you decide you want to make this bio more accurate, please have a go, but you'll have to keep an eye on this article regularly to make sure that it doesn't get changed again. I'd recommend downloading the Inspector General's report PDF and quoting directly from it, making it a source in the references, and doing some kind of quantified characterization of it that cannot be challenged, such as X number of criticisms, X number of praises. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.67.86.80 (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hacks to this Page

Several "editors" continue to add references to a BLOG that once appeared on FP Magazine's website and refer to it as a news source. That political BLOG intentionally misrepresents the routine IG report on the Embassy. The BLOG in question is intentionally misrepresenting the IG report and misplaces quotes to make his statements appear to be part of the IG report. The Washington Post owns FP Magazine and was the the first to quote the BLOG that appeared on the FP website as a real news source without giving notice of the ownership connection. It is a political BLOG - not a news source. Ambassador Avant was part of the regularly scheduled IG process and she resigned post following the death of her mother in-law and her father in-law's severe stroke to be home with her family. Please discontinue these attacks on Ambassador Avant's tenure, which was extremely successful. The daily management of an Embassy is the responsibility of the Deputy Chief of Mission and the management team - the criticism in the IG report was aimed at that team. Ambassador Avant's travel was in all cases pre-approved by the state department, as is required and those dates included weekends and holidays. Many ambassadors choose to work primarily from the official residence instead of the embassy - that is why the residence is fully equipped with not one but two offices. This has all been covered extensively in the press. Ambassador Avant turned over several employees and left the embassy better than she found it and returns to the Bahamas often and at her own expense to support initiatives she began during her term.

Tone

When did Wikipedia become an extension of Facebook? Both the article and the Talk section have been slanted toward interests other than those of fairness and factuality. The tone of the writing is disdainfully dismissive of any critical appraisal. The purported shortcomings regarding Avant's tenure as ambassador, which continue to draw media attention, should be set in the customary "controversy" section of Wiki articles and given a pro and con summary. Orthotox (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

IG report and The Press

This section was added. It directly quotes from the IG report the key findings of the report - because previous contributors and editors have twisted the facts and those distortions have made their way into the media - I have addressed the disconnect between the press reporting of the IG and the ACTUAL IG report. It is reseached and documented properly and further edits will be considered vandalism and reported as such! 69.53.237.65 (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Wikipedia is not the place for your research. Wikipeida does not contain original research, so your analysis of what the blog said, and conclusions of how it may have been picked up by other news sites is not permissible. I will partially revert your edit again, leaving in the factual content you added without the analysis. What you describe as a 'blog' is in fact an opinion article written by a political journalist. I don't see the fact that it is owned by The Washington Post makes any difference or raises any questions about it be a suitable source for opinions. If you can source opposing opinions for balance, then please do. What you may not do is remove it just because you disagree with the opinions, and you personal analysis of what it says is, I'm afraid, not relevant. Again, if you can find a good source that discounts what is said in the cite, then please add it. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I do think you are missing the point. An opinion piece is housed on a magazine's website IS a blog. It was not an "article" is was an opinion piece on the author's blog, entitled "The Cable." The Washington Post ownership is relevant, because they were the first to miss attribute the blog to be an "article" in FP Magazine. In other words they manufactured a "news source" to create a story that is otherwise untrue. I agree with you that the Key Judgments of the IG report and the link to the entire IG report tell the whole story. The rest will go into a "controversy" section, as is customary. 69.53.237.65 (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What matters is;

• Is the source reliable? - yes, it was written by a political journalist
• Is any opinion on it notable? - yes, it was written by a political journalist
• Are any facts on it demonstrably false? - well, that's a matter of opinion, the issues are not simple

If you have any issues with the factual basis of the source, then please find a source to counter them. Any counter-argument cannot be put by a Wikipedia editor. Also "Controversy" sections are actually discouraged, because they can contain things difficult to give due weight to within the proper context. What is preferred is that and controversy is discussed in the relevant place and context within the rest of the article, where it can be better judged and balanced. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Autobiography

This entire article like the output from a public relations firm hired by Nicole Avant. No citations for "Career and Early Life" because they seem to have been dictated by her. A critical report from the IG of Ambassador Avant's tenure has now been spun into something positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.216.231 (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

IG Report

My recent edits should resolve the dispute over the page, which did not comply with the neutral POV requirement.

Removed were purported quotations from the January 2012 State Department Inspector General's Report (IG). The previous version of the "Serving as U.S. Ambassador to the Bahamas" Section stated that the IG Report "praised Ambassador Avant’s 'leadership in the areas of law enforcement, security and public affairs;'" The language in single quotation marks is not in that IG report and the sentence was removed.

The previous page also stated that "Separately, in the Inspector's Evaluation Report, the IG team leader stated that Ambassador Avant's public diplomacy activities 'generated excellent publicity for the embassy and the United States, demonstrating U.S. interest in the Bahamas.'" The language in single quotation marks is not in that report and was removed.

Added was positive information from the report on law enforcement cooperation and the Ambassador's overall performance. Also added was unfavorable information. Commenters above claim that the IG report was mischaracterized, yet the very first Key Judgment, on the first page of the report, states that "The embassy is recovering from an extended period of dysfunctional leadership and management, which has caused problems throughout the embassy." Additional unfavorable information from that report was quoted.

These are direct quotations from the report without editorializing. Foreign Policy writer Josh Rogin's opinion is absolutely relevant. The magazine has important news and commentary on the world of diplomacy and is widely read. Hillary Clinton--Avant's former boss--has been published in Foreign Policy magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilbanem (talk • contribs) 11:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Josh Rogin's blog was not published in FP Magazine - it was published on a blog titled "The Cable." It mis-quotes the IG reports and is a pure opinion piece from someone with no direct knowledge of the Ambassador's tenure or seemingly of what an Ambassador does. While the current version also inappropriately attributes negative critiques of the embassy to the Ambassador directly, it is close to the actual document in tone and closer to the actual document than previous versions - so no further edits required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.124.123 (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

BlackPast Source

I removed a cite to BlackPast regarding her graduation from California State University Northridge. They put it at 1984, which would mean she graduated aged 16. This is questionable. The recently added date of 1990 seems more likely, but needs a source. Feel free to revert if it really does turn out she was a teen prodigy.

This also raises questions about the accuracy of the other facts sourced to BlackPast. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)