Talk:Emily W. Murphy/Archive 2

She did it
Missvain (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * letter
 * source


 * I suggest we add at the end of the final para:

On November 23, 2020, after the state of Michigan certified results, Murphy issued the letter of ascertainment.

And source it to the Baltimore Sun article.

Comments? —valereee (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me valereee! Missvain (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , at this point I consider myself involved. If you'd be willing to add that, it would be great. —valereee (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry, ec. —valereee (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ No problem! Missvain (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The source used has "apparent winner" in quotes in its headline, as do lots of other headlines and the quote also appears in the body of some articles, such as The Toronto Star, but this phrase does not appear in Murphy's letter which is careful to say nothing of the sort: "As you know, the GSA Administrator does not pick or certify the winner of a presidential election. Instead, the GSA Administrator’s role under the Act is extremely narrow: to make resources and services available in connection with a presidential transition. ... I have determined that you may access the post-election resources and services ... The actual winner of the presidential election will be determined by the electoral process detailed in the Constitution." (emphasis added by me) Our content cannot parrot inaccuracies in normally reliable sources (many based on a single AP report). --Mirokado (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * we do normally need to rely on the RS's - the letter appears to point to Sec3 of 3 USC 102, pertaining to the "President-elect" -- so even if this wasn't an "ascertainment" it should at least be that the P-E has been "recognized" -- do you have a RS that states this better? — xaosflux  Talk 03:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the response,. The origin of the phrase "apparent winner", if not sloppy editorialising from PA, may have been this earlier statement from GSA, reported in The Washington Business Journal: "Murphy does not pick the winner of the presidential election, the GSA said in a statement, she only ascertains that apparent successful candidate once a winner is clear based on the process laid out in the Constitution." I propose that we insert "Federal transition resources for" so the sentence reads "Murphy ascertained Federal transition resources for Biden as the apparent winner on November 23, 2020." This says clearly what Murphy actually ascertained along with her justification for that ascertainment. The addition is already supported by the Baltimore Sun source with the phrase "... allowing Biden to coordinate with federal agencies on plans for taking over on Jan. 20." --Mirokado (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My personal suggestion is something along the lines of "On November 23, 2020, after the state of Michigan certified the election results in that state in favor of Joe Biden, Murphy informed the Biden campaign that federal government transition resources would be made available to him." Ideally, this would be followed by a one-sentence description of what it actually entails (it's primarily government money, but also office space/etc) for reader information. While "ascertain" is the quoted word from the rules/regulations/laws/etc, it is absolutely incorrect both grammatically and factually in the way it's used in the article here (as well as the caption for the image). Murphy ascertains whether a person will be replacing the incumbent president or not, and who that person is. She does not personally "ascertain" any resources - the more proper word would be "assign" or "permit access to". On a side note, this is why edits should not be made to fully protected articles prior to consensus on the talk page - for multiple hours now, the article has used language that is both factually and grammatically incorrect, as weell as confusing to the average reader - which could've all been avoided if, per WP:FULL, consensus for the changes was seeked here before they were made by a lone administrator. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I won't be editing for the next few hours, I will be happy with anything following either of these suggestions. --Mirokado (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the When Joe Biden was generally acknowledged on November 7, 2020 to have won the 2020 United States presidential election, Murphy refused to sign a letter allowing Biden's transition team to access federal agencies and transition funds; this came as Trump refused to acknowledge Biden's victory.[2] Murphy ascertained Biden as the apparent winner on November 23, 2020.[3] section seems a bit off: Since I'm making suggestions here, I'm slightly involved now so won't be making the edit while the page is FP; would be nice to have someone review this section for a solid replacement paragraph to be reviewed by the next patrolling admin. — xaosflux  Talk 12:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "refused to sign a letter" seems loaded - suggests she was given something to sign but declined to; doesn't this position create this letter - perhaps "would not initially produce a letter"
 * "Murphy ascertained Biden as the apparent winner" -- follow from above, this seems loaded as well, but does seems to have some RS's supporting it, as this is a follow up to the preceding sentence, perhaps making it about what she literally did (provide the approval for resources by way of a new letter) and not getting stuck on the "ascertain" part would be better here?
 * fwiw I agree with these ideas. I didn't want to make them myself because "whitewashing", so figured it's better a couple come from someone else. I also think the prose reads weird as it is currently: "refused to sign a letter" "signed it on November 23". Would not initially works best. I also agree with 2nd idea, whilst it's literally an "ascertainment letter", the particulars are not relevant in the lead and not in this bio in general imo; nothing is lost on the reader with just "letter". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree that "refused to sign", while it's wording many RS have used, seems to indicate a letter she was given and refused to sign. Maybe "delayed issuing the ascertainment letter"? —valereee (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Are we sure it's not too soon to incorporate this? WP:NOTNEWS.  We wouldn't rather wait a few weeks to make sure this was actually signed? Feoffer (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a two page letter, signed on page two. Click the image to find the pdf file. --Mirokado (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Drmies @Callanecc see this and all threads below and history due to edits . If POV, misrepresentation of sources and BLP violations weren't enough, there's now mass trolling. How much disruption does it take these days for a topic ban? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC) e: 15:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Happily withdrawn if you find it disruptive.  I'm not certain how this is different from similar WP:NOTNEWS concerns from the same exact time period, but you don't need to explain it to me if you're calling the cops on me for even asking Feoffer (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Given that the protection was dropped to ECP, from full, I felt comfortable that, having seen a general agreement here that the wording was extremely poor, I made some changes that hopefully at least bring it closer to being correct and neutral. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, those changes address my concern very well as well as making other improvements. --Mirokado (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks. I do think that the section still could use some expansion of information - and in fact right now her tenure as GSA administrator could use expansion as a whole - but this should hopefully be acceptable to all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Effects of refusing to sign a letter
I think the following sentences are just too much, especially for a biography of a subject, given that: (a) the letter is now signed, (b) the net delay compared to last election was 15 days, (c) the source simply says the enumerated list of benefits was on hold for now, (d) benefits are now given, and (e) afaik reliable sources haven't said, in their own voice, the delay caused damages. In WP:10YEARTEST the "potential for damage" if it continues is irrelevant, but actual damage caused may be. afaik no RS are claiming that there was materialised damages, just the potential for them there to be, or attributed claims of the same by House Democrats / the Biden campaign. Plus, "refuses" is a bit of a strong word given (at a skim) it seems none of the sources use the word in this particular manner.

Quote I think needs to go: "By refusing to allow the transition to proceed, she prevented the incoming administration from obtaining office space, performing background checks on prospective Cabinet nominees, and accessing classified information. Murphy's withholding of the letter also blocked Biden's transition team from accessing several million dollars in federal transition funds for salaries and other costs, establishing government email addresses, and working with the Office of Government Ethics on required financial disclosure and conflict-of-interest forms for incoming nominees."

This theorising on the delay may be more appropriate for Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results, but nothing was actioned and I think it's quite inappropriate here. Further, we already have a quote from the House Democrats letter in the next paragraph, which is more crisp and attributed, which addresses key weaknesses of delay (pandemic, economy, national security). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree. If in the future there are reliable sources reporting on actual experienced problems that are attributed to the delay, we can add something back in, but right now it's just a three-week delay in starting a 2.5-month process. —valereee (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Absolutely disagree that it should be removed. These are the effects of her going along with Trump and the Republican Party's attempt to subvert the election results. This is what person will be known for her: delaying the transition because of baseless and concerted efforts by anti-democratic elements to try to subvert the election results. By omitting this content, we are not only ignoring what RS say but failing to communicate to readers what the GSA does and what the effects of delays in the GSA's certification are. Readers will be misinformed and misled into thinking refusals to permit a transition have no consequence, and that they will be uninformed as to why her actions were contentious. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But, RS don't yet know what those effects are. They're only speculating on what they might be. I think it would as PR suggested appropriate for the Disputes surrounding article, but we don't know what issues the delay by Emily Murphy will cause. I don't think speculation really belongs in a BLP. —valereee (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute that these are the objective effects. There is no doubt that the incoming administration was prevented from obtaining intelligence briefings, funds for the transition etc. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * By all means, this should be deleted.  Nbcnews doesn't know what they're talking about on this one Feoffer (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * With seemingly a rough consensus here, I have removed this from the article. The House Democrats letter quote remains, for the attributed speculation of effects, which addresses Snoo's concerns quite well I feel. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Partisan hack?


I think it's appropriate to reinsert Special:Diff/990115519, as a starting point or some variant thereof, content removed by Feoffer, which appears to be the consensus of reliable sources which discuss the subject as a whole, and the dilemma of the situation. I think excluding this deprives readers of essential context surrounding the ascertainment process in this unprecedented election cycle. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Do we have any additional sourcing for this diff, which borders on puffery? I oppose inclusion atm because it seems calculated simply to portray Murphy in a positive light as opposed to imparting genuine information. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * CNN's next piece, both editorial, also has the same tone, and as far as I've seen CNN and WaPo have had the most detailed coverage on this front. WaPo mentions it too iirc but not in as much detail. But CNN's pieces are quite balanced here on share of responsibility. I'd say LA Times has the same tone, but other than these I'm not familiar with others, though afaik these are the only ones that discuss Murphy more broadly. Added links for a read. Further, best I know, no editorial pieces have pushed back against these pieces, but a few opinion pieces (WaPo, The Atlantic) have, and both reference the CNN piece. Links above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional links. Unfortunately I don't subscribe to the Post or the LA Times, so can't evaluate those. If either one or the other of those support the following, which seems a fair summary to me of, I would support including something along the lines of:
 * Murphy has been described as a "technocrat" and "policy wonk", without a strong affiliation with Donald Trump. Acquaintances described her thought process during the two weeks she declined to ascertain Biden's apparent victory as agonizing.
 * This seems a bit more informative than the diff above and would help to clarify that the information we have does not suggest she was doing this for primarily partisan reasons. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The point is less that it was agonising (it'd be so for everyone) but more that there's a big difference between delaying it to appease Trump, and delaying it because it's unprecedented and there's no guidebook on what to do in such a situation. We can't judge which of these it was, of course, but we can summarise the viewpoints of RS' on this front, and how they judged the situation and the subject's history in relation to that. Currently, we are only summarising the former viewpoint.
 * The WaPo opinion piece which, as I say, pushes back on the CNN editorial, does refer to its sources and doesn't dispute that part, but it criticises her for lack of criteria for what it'd take for her to proceed and hence labels it a dilemma of her own making. Further it states that 2000 is an unfair comparison because that came down to one state, not multiple. Of course, multiple newspapers aren't going to do the digging with all of Murphy's colleagues, but the fact that multiple sources refer to this part of the CNN piece and that it's the most comprehensive we have on the situation means it should be included. Not summarising the contexts for delay is a disservice to reader imo. That being said, I suggest you use web.archive.org or archive.today or a similar site and see if you can access the sources that way? Just so that I'm not inadvertently misleading you with my own reading of the sources, I think it's best folks read them themselves. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The point is less that it was agonising (it'd be so for everyone) but more that there's a big difference between delaying it to appease Trump, and delaying it because it's unprecedented and there's no guidebook on what to do in such a situation. We can't judge which of these it was, of course, but we can summarise the viewpoints of RS' on this front, and how they judged the situation and the subject's history in relation to that. Currently, we are only summarising the former viewpoint.
 * The WaPo opinion piece which, as I say, pushes back on the CNN editorial, does refer to its sources and doesn't dispute that part, but it criticises her for lack of criteria for what it'd take for her to proceed and hence labels it a dilemma of her own making. Further it states that 2000 is an unfair comparison because that came down to one state, not multiple. Of course, multiple newspapers aren't going to do the digging with all of Murphy's colleagues, but the fact that multiple sources refer to this part of the CNN piece and that it's the most comprehensive we have on the situation means it should be included. Not summarising the contexts for delay is a disservice to reader imo. That being said, I suggest you use web.archive.org or archive.today or a similar site and see if you can access the sources that way? Just so that I'm not inadvertently misleading you with my own reading of the sources, I think it's best folks read them themselves. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

removal of content 2Dec
Hey, ! What were you objecting to? That was supported by the source. —valereee (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , It's not directly relevant to Murphy herself (no indication that she responded) and insinuates that Murphy's appointment was a sinister means to assist the Republican Party. It may well have been, but reporting on what someone asked "those in attendance" seems too vague for inclusion in my view. (Diff: Special:Diff/992098240). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, she was one of the few who did respond, that was the point. I'm not sure what you mean by it insinuates what? No, it just says she whistleblew on her boss, correctly. —valereee (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's what I mean: in this meeting, her boss said something illegal. Murphy, along with others, reported it to the correct authorities. —valereee (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Oh, sorry, I clearly wasn't fully awake when I made that edit; I've reverted. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , lol, no worries. That's often my excuse too! :D —valereee (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Business Insider: The letter enabling Biden's transition goes to extreme lengths to avoid saying he beat Trump and won the election


Detailed analysis of the GSA letter, by Business Insider. Right cite (talk)


 * "But Murphy's letter departed from form by refusing to address Biden as "President-elect" or by making an explicit judgement about the election's outcome." —valereee (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to see another RS make similar analysis, but I think this type of analysis does belong in the article. Their assertions about the differences are, well, pretty big. Almost to the point that if other RS make similar analyses, it deserves a subsection? —valereee (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it belongs here. Wikipedia is not simply supposed to parrot what reliable sources say - we have policies regarding the weight we should give to certain information and more importantly in which article it is placed. All of the sources currently say that the letter was written in accordance with the law - and even if those sources are making comparisons, those comparisons are not due for her biographical article. She is her own person with the authority to write the letter how she wants to - and just because reliable sources are attempting to compare it to past (obviously in an attempt to smear/discredit her, if you read the sources) does not mean we must cover it in her article here. Such comparisons are likely due for Presidential transition of Joe Biden - but not for her biography article - which already needs expansion on her tenure at GSA to avoid giving undue weight to this one instance. It certainly does not deserve a subsection here - at most, one sentence which explains something along the lines of "Contrary to recent precedent, Murphy did not refer to Biden as 'president-elect' in the letter she sent, instead using only the language required by the law to permit him the access to funds/resources" or similar. Any mention of her not referring to him as president-elect should also, per the reliable sources, mention that she carefully stuck to the "legalese" wording of the law. Personally, it's clear to me she did this because she did not want to be seen as getting involved in the dispute - and by doing the bare minimum of what the law says she has to, she did not opine one way or the other at all on it. But regardless, it's important to provide due weight to what she did do, and not just what she didn't do. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree on the nitpicking/'analysis' of the writing in depth, as such don't think the president-elect part matters and easily comes across as undue, but I do think the fact that it was 'unusually personal' may deserve a mention. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I was going to strike this as I've just added something I hope is a compromise - I think three total sentences on the letter (one paragraph) is a good compromise, and I did mention how it didn't include president-elect, but I also included her descriptions of her duties in the Act as vague and that she recommended considerations of (unnamed) amendments to the Act. I think my (admittedly WP:BOLD) addition carefully skirts the valid, reliably sourced points while also maintaining NPOV - but please feel free to revert and copy it here for discussion if you feel necessary. I'll note that I don't have a problem with that - I simply find it much easier to discuss changes when there's at least one revision where they can be looked at "in the full picture" in the article - and in no way was I intending to break any revert rules if this had already been added and reverted and I missed it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I forgot to ping, but I'll note I do agree also with your removal of "elaborate speculation" that you just did, for posterity's sake. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"unusually personal"
WaPo calls the letter "unusually personal". Worth adding into the final sentence? —valereee (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this is quite a deviation from the status quo of boilerplate-like letters, so yes, worthy of inclusion. Maybe not a whole sub-section (yet), but a few sentences at least solely for the letter yes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is "unusually personal" a synonym for "2% actual business and 98% self-justification"? We don't need to point this out; the letter is posted, people can just read it. -- MelanieN (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , but does the average reader know what a more-typical letter looks like? —valereee (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably not. Personally (no joke intended) I would leave it out, but since WaPo said it and I am outnumbered here 2-to-1, it's OK with me. (Too bad we can't say CYA because that's really what it is.) -- MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

CNN: Here's how Trump's transition blockade finally ended


Detailed analysis of the standoff between the GSA and the Biden transition. Right cite (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"After herself being threatened by Biden supporters"
I just reverted a series of edits by which added a statement based on the following refs: I think this edit adds WP:UNDUE weight and possibly involves WP:SYNTH, because neither of sources in question identify who was supporting whom (it's hard to know how we would tell, in any event). We could possibly say after receiving threats, but I'm a bit wary about how much weight to confer on that either. Moreover, Perennial sources states that post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. But her claim of being threaten is notable enough. I don't think the inclusion of this is undue. Greenknight dv (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * While I think it may be due to mention it, it needs fleshed out on this talk page first. There are immense BLP complications with discussing threats to one/s family, thus I do not think it should be added until it is discussed and wording is figured out here. I'll also note that continuing to re-add it before a consensus is found here will put Greenknight dv in violation of the consensus required discretionary sanction. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

So Murphy and her family & staff were threatened for holding up Biden's transition. In her letter to Biden, she included this. I think this must be included in the article. Greenknight dv (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * the source does not say she made the decision due to being threatened. it's also quite charged to say "threatened by biden supporters" ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe an addition to the section about the letter:
 * currently election, calling the Act "vague", and recommending that Congress
 * possibly change to "election, describing threats she'd received pressuring her to act, calling the Act "vague", and recommending that Congress"
 * That would be supported by the WaPo source above. —valereee (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Or maybe break into two sentences, as it's getting very long: currently Breaking with recent precedent, the letter did not call Biden "president-elect", instead fulfilling her requirements under the Act without implying that he won the election,[27] calling the Act "vague", and recommending that Congress "consider amendments to the Act" to improve the standard it sets for post-election allocation of resources.[28]
 * Maybe instead:
 * Breaking with recent precedent, the letter did not call Biden "president-elect", instead fulfilling her requirements under the Act without implying that he won the election. In the letter she called the Act "vague", recommended Congress "consider amendments to the Act" to improve the standard it sets for post-election allocation of resources", and described threats she'd received pressuring her to act.
 * —valereee (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect many have sort of wandered off because this woman's fifteen minutes are over, but does anyone object to the rewording immediately above under "Maybe instead:"? —valereee (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the change is good, personally. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Breaking with recent precedent, the letter did not call Biden "president-elect", instead fulfilling her requirements under the Act without implying that he won the election. In the letter she called the Act "vague", recommended Congress "consider amendments to the Act" to improve the standard it sets for post-election allocation of resources", and described threats she'd received pressuring her to act.
 * —valereee (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect many have sort of wandered off because this woman's fifteen minutes are over, but does anyone object to the rewording immediately above under "Maybe instead:"? —valereee (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the change is good, personally. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect many have sort of wandered off because this woman's fifteen minutes are over, but does anyone object to the rewording immediately above under "Maybe instead:"? —valereee (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the change is good, personally. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree
 * Disagree

WP:NPOV
I see there are still two NPOV tags on this article, but I can't recall what the dispute was from last month. Are there still neutrality problems, or should we remove those? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I suspect that now that her part in all of this is over, no one is going to be arguing about NPOV any more. Her fifteen minutes is over lol —valereee (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , That was my thought too haha; would be nice to remove the tags if there's consensus to do so, however. For reference, here is the last pre-November 4 version: Special:PermaLink/987534934. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I removed them. We'll see what happens. —valereee (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Potential undue/primary source information
Hello,

I've reverted the addition made in this edit as I don't consider it to be due weight given that it is sourced only to a primary source (the inspector general report), which does not even mention Emily Murphy by name or office aside from saying that she created a team to "coordinate" the audit requests and her response to the memorandum. Furthermore, the report is primarily about the response team itself, and again, doesn't make accusations against or really any claims about Emily Murphy other than that she was part of the decision to create the team. Given that I could find no secondary sources (such as news articles) which report on this memorandum, or expand on her involvement, I do not consider that inclusion of this is due weight in this article at this time. I have included the removed text below for discussion. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Removed text: In January 2021, the Inspector General reported that "GSA is impeding oversight of its COVID-19 activities", has "compromised the integrity of information provided by GSA personnel, and has delayed and limited the audit team's access to requested information." Murphy "defended the work of the CAL Team, but neither made any claims of privilege nor offered any new or compelling information to refute [GSA's] findings." and citation:


 * Restored with readily available secondary sources. 66.31.23.79 (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * One article from the Daily Beast does not make this due weight - further, the Daily Beast is not to be used for contentious or negative statements about BLP. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but what's your objection to the other provided source - - which it turns out is already used elsewhere in the article? 66.31.23.79 (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That source pretty much confirms that, if anything, this should go in the GSA article, but I doubt it’s even due weight for that. The article doesn’t even mention Emily Murphy in the section about the IG memo. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of sources, this seems inherent to the GSA & its COVID response, not to this biography. I don’t see its importance here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

second photo
Does the second photo of her actually add anything here? I'm wondering if we can just get rid of it? It just seems sort of random. Also it doesn't do her any favors. —valereee (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree with removal. Doesn't really add anything. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)