Talk:Neomi Rao

Not NPOV
Two persons are quoted who endorse the nomination of Neomi Rao to become the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA): Jonathan H. Adler and Susan Dudley. Why are these persons mentioned at all? This is a political nomination. Quoting people who endorse her nomination is not a neutral point of view and therefore in my opinion against Wikipedia rules. Wereldburger758 (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I added that commentary from The Hill and Washington Post. I thought it noteworthy because of the sourcing and the fact that Dudley previously held the position Rao was nominated for. You're welcome to add commentary of people opposing the nomination--there wasn't any in the sourcing I found, which is why I didn't add it myself. Marquardtika (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"Rao was the dissent in a 2-1 ruling" on Trump's taxes...
That's it? Her clearly partisan and dangerous pro-Trump nonsense gets treated like a trivial ho-hum ruling? She's a partisan nutjob.

Google if needed.

AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The quotes from the ruling probably don't belong as-is because they aren't cited from a reliable secondary source. First, they aren't directly sourced to anything. The ruling is embedded in the previous citation but that's not obvious when looking at the quotes. Second, the ruling itself is a primary source, which is inappropriate for this purpose (WP:USINGPRIMARY). Including the quotes without context isn't appropriate and, since there is no context in the ruling, adding more context directly would be original research. I propose that any further information about the ruling and Rao's dissent, including quotations from the ruling, be sourced to reliable analyses.

Jaufrec (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

NY Times incorporated a nicely salacious quote from the trial that I have added. You're welcome. 2600:1702:4300:71F0:CDCA:3A61:522E:6EC5 (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)