Talk:Elaine Duke

Puerto Rico is 'a good news story'
Duke created national headlines in a press conference outside the White House where she stated the Hurricane Maria relief efforts are a "good-news story" and she is "very satisfied" with FEMA's efforts to help the people of Puerto Rico. Obviously, this created a firestorm with the mayor of San Juan and other folks indignantly lashing out. She has since walked back her comments. I believe this is a notable moment in her career and worthy of inclusion on her page; however, I'm hesitant to add it without consensus. Also, just because we can add it doesn't mean we should. I don't want to be overly critical of a person who is leading an extremely difficult recovery operation. But there are numerous sources on the situation such as the following: 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/us/san-juan-mayor-trump.html 2. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/29/white-house-puerto-rico-response-trump-carmen-yulin-cruz-243294 3. http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/29/politics/puerto-rico-hurricane-maria-san-juan-mayor-trump-response/index.html Some of everything (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Some of everything, you are correct in saying that we should include Duke's "good-news story" comments because it has been reported by numerous WP:RS.
 * The decision on whether to include the criticism is based on WP:NPOV, a Wikipedia policy which we must follow: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
 * WP:WEIGHT, which is part of WP:NPOV, says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
 * If you use a Google search for "Duke good-news story", you will easily find hundreds of WP:RS reporting the story, and all or almost all of them are challenging her characterization.
 * Therefore, challenging her "good-news story" is a significant viewpoint. The criticism is prominent.
 * Therefore, it belongs in this Wikipedia entry.
 * Therefore, User:Marquardtika incorrectly characterized it as violating WP:NPOV.
 * Therefore, I am restoring it to the entry, and including your additional sources to demonstrate that it is a prominent viewpoint.
 * If Marquardtika still thinks that it violates WP:NPOV, I would like to know why he believes that it doesn't represent a significant view published by many WP:RS. --Nbauman (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I also said that she traveled to Puerto Rico to meet officials at the airport, which gives a more favorable impression of Duke. --Nbauman (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the content you added is good. My objection to the previous content that was added was in the non-neutral way that it was worded, but your content is worded neutrally. The content I removed read, in part, "...struck some as tone deaf and reflected the perils of the Trump administration's attempts to reassure Americans that the federal government is responding appropriately to the unfolding crisis..." My objection wasn't about including this particular story, but about making sure we worded it in an encyclopedic way. So thanks for doing so. Marquardtika (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, good. Thanks for the clarification. --Nbauman (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Lawyer?
Why is she categorized as a lawyer (4 categories as of 3 December 2017)? She has an MBA and has previously worked as a business consultant. There is no evidence of a law degree or legal training. – Maliepa (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * That is odd. I removed the lawyer categories. Thanks for catching this! Marquardtika (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)