Talk:Elizabeth Fowler (lawyer)

Neutrality
It seems clear from one source given in the page (Guardian), and two others I have seen (Huffington, CounterPunch), this person is possibly a controversial figure in the public policy / private sector so called revolving door of influence debate. Although it is certainly up for debate whether bias and prominence undercut these positions. As such, the choice of to write a biography that only reflect this person's career as either non-controversial or in one case (STAT News) a positive for public policy, is likely a violation of Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality. This policy of taking the neutral point of view, doesn't say ignore controversy, it says reflect opinions fairly and in due proportion, ignoring them only if they are ludicrously extreme (i.e. whacky), or otherwise unreliable. At least one of her critics (Guardian, Greenwald) is a highly reputed figure making a very scathing attack in a very major publication, albeit seemingly only at the half way point of this controversy, such as it may be. Blue 42 Strike (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello (talk), feel free to add anything else you want to the Wikipedia article (e.g. a section on controversies). I didn't come across any HuffPost or Counterpunch articles, but you can add them yourself? Jesswade88 (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's too big a job for me, I would expect to be paid good money to sift through that amount of material to come up with a neutral summation of all the differing views at differing times that seem to be out there. If nobody wants it, the simplest solution would be to yank the STAT News info, and alert readers with a general advisory about the broadly promotional nature of most of the sourcing used here (your employers and people who invite you to talk don't tend to include information like "It's difficult to find someone who embodies the sleazy, anti-democratic, corporatist revolving door that greases Washington as shamelessly and purely as Liz Fowler." in their snippet bios. Oddly enough, the source for that line, The Guardian, is already here. It is just being used for a boring dry fact, rather than the main point of the piece (to hang that killer line out there), and apparently quite redundantly. Was that intentional? Shooter MacPherson (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * In fact I have removed the Guardian source entirely. It wasn't needed for what it was being used for, but the risk is too great that some inexperienced amateur comes along and gives potentially undue prominence to that one attack line in it, without having bothered to see if it is representative, significant or a total outlier. Shooter MacPherson (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this Counterpunch article: https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/06/07/liz-fowler-is-back-and-shes-writing-us-health-policy-again/ 24.161.59.247 (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)