Talk:Colleen Joy Shogan

There was a debate recently about her past partisan tweets and whether she could be objective. For the article to be full, somebody should include this material. 216.49.27.38 (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Added material is not neutral; sourcing is not neutral. 164.154.253.85 (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Added better sourcing; updated text; did not change the it about tweets 164.154.253.85 (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Additions to Colleen Joy Shogan Article

• What I think should be changed (include citations): The article titled Colleen Joy Shogan is missing mentions of several of Dr. Shogan’s key initiatives during her tenure as Archivist of the United States, including:
  • Announcement of Declaration250, a multiyear celebration of the principles enshrined in the Declaration ahead of the 250th anniversary of the U.S. in 2026 through exhibitions, special programs, themed events, and civic education initiatives.
  • Planned addition of the Emancipation Proclamation and the 19th Amendment to the Rotunda alongside the other Charters of Freedom to share a more complete story of our nation's ongoing pursuit of a more perfect union.
  • Unveiling of a new state-of-the-art digitization center in College Park, MD, that allows the agency to provide greater public access to the country’s most important historical federal government records faster than ever before.
  • Response to the vandalism incident in the Rotunda, which saw the red powder thrown on the encasement holding the U.S. Constitution cleared in just three days. Dr. Shogan went on to deliver remarks on behalf of the National Archives at the sentencing of one of the perpetrators.

• Why it should be changed: The article titled Colleen Joy Shogan should provide a more comprehensive view of Dr. Shogan’s work at the agency during her tenure as Archivist of the United States.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Usnatarchives (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Please provide independent sources (i.e. not Ms Shogan's employer nor her personal blog).

Thank you. Axad12 (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. All the sources cited are NARA or Shogan's blog, which are nice, but should not be used on their own. I do remember the vandalism incident being covered in the news media, and her statement, but I'm not sure about the other ones. It is the responsibility of the user submitting the request to provide adequate sources. Historyday01 (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Independent sources include the following:

Announcement of Declaration250: Coverage from Fine Books & Collections, Business Eye UK

Planned addition of the Emancipation Proclamation: Coverage from NBC Washington

Planned addition of 19th Amendment: Coverage from CBS News

Unveiling of the digitization center: Coverage from Federal Times, The Washington Post

Response to the vandalism incident: Coverage from CNN, National Review, New York Post Usnatarchives (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I remain somewhat concerned about these proposed additions.

One is that she announced something, one is that she planned something, one is that she unveiled something, and one is that she made a comment to news media.

In what sense are any of these meaningful achievements? In what sense are they anything other than someone simply performing non-remarkable tasks while doing their job?

Apologies but I don't see anything of encyclopaedic value here - just a paid employee trying to blatantly promote their boss for whenever they happened to appear in the news. Axad12 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I remain skeptical as well, but I would like to see it written into text that could be added. I think the vandalism incident and digitization center could be noteworthy, but I'm not sure about the others UNLESS the latter gets reversed come January 2025. Also, the National Review and New York Post are not reliable sources. Historyday01 (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed.

I also note that the rationale for inclusion provided in the original request was that The article titled Colleen Joy Shogan should provide a more comprehensive view of Dr. Shogan’s work at the agency during her tenure as Archivist of the United States.

While I do not disagree with that as an ambition, I do disagree very strongly with the apparent goal that this article should become an indiscriminate collection of occasions when Dr Shogan was quoted or mentioned within the media.

Evidently the purpose of an encyclopaedia article is not that it should serve as an almanac of such incidents. For example, WP:NOTNP states: When editing Wikipedia to reflect current news, always ask yourself if you are adding something truly encyclopedic and important, or mere trivia.

By way of comparison, in an article about a company CEO the article text is not likely to include details of individual initiatives announced/planned/unveiled, and nor is it likely to include individual occasions when the subject is quoted in the press.

Also, making comments after the sentencing of a criminal is not the same as being involved in the incident in question, it is simply acting as a spokesperson (i.e. routine activity). Axad12 (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not Done. Requesting editor has been site blocked. Consensus appears to be against inclusion. There was a suggestion that if text was provided for how the material could be included then the request might proceed, but with the OP site blocked that isn't about to occur. Axad12 (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Recent removals

Following recent removals (and reversions) I'd comment as follows on the two issues in question:

1) Removal of the subject's own blog as a source.

The last paragraph of the Censorship section has two sources. One is a good independent source, the other is the subject's own blog. The citation to the subject's own blog is therefore superfluous and its removal does not necessitate the removal of any article text. Under the circumstances the removal of the blog source seems to me to be uncontroversial.

2) Removal of recent material re: speaking at a private gathering.

I don't believe that speaking at a private gathering can be significant or of encyclopaedic value. Also, the fact that the gathering was reported in the news does not, in itself, make the incident worthy of inclusion. Similarly the comment that the subject made (she emphasized the "importance of using America's founding documents to teach and inspire") seems entirely platitudinous and not worthy of quoting. I accept that user:Historyday01 states (at my talk page) that the fact that the gathering was held by Charles Koch and Stand Together implies some significance but (a) I do not agree, and (b) I note that the subject's own husband is the internal communications director for Stand Together (as per the last line of own article). That being the case, making a platitude at a private gathering for the organisation her husband works for is evidently of dubious significance.

I'd be grateful for input from other users on these two points and would be more than happy to abide by consensus. However, I note that consensus is required for inclusion in an article, rather than for removal, and that being the case I believe that the relevant material should be removed until such time as there is a consensus in favour of inclusion. Axad12 (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I would say, in terms of #1, that it is her own blog, BUT it is hosted at NARA. From my experience, NARA has many WordPress blogs like this one (a practice I believe started under David Ferriero), and this is just an outgrowth of that. So in that sense, I would say it is worth citing, and considering who Shogan is. This is an official blog [the official title is "AOTUS 11: The Blog of Dr. Colleen Shogan"], not some private blog she is running, nor is it a post on social media. In terms of the private engagement I do think, as I said on your talk page, at User talk:Axad12#Recent removals on Colleen Joy Shogan page is notable in terms of Charles Koch and Stand Together. If it was just some random organization, I may feel differently, but considering the coverage of Koch and Stand Together in recent years, like in Mother Jones, The Nation, and scholarly study, to give three examples, and even some focus on Stand Together, I think it is worth retaining in the article. Historyday01 (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Re: #1, it is a blog. The fact that it is related to the NARA (and thus non-independent of the article subject) does not make the situation better, if anything it makes it worse. However, my point was that the citation is superfluous and that removal has no effect on the article. Thus what is the objection to removal?

Re: #2, platitudinous comments made at private gatherings are fundamentally not encyclopaedic. I do not doubt that Koch and Stand Together are notable, but I would feel the same if the comment had been made at a private gathering hosted by Taylor Swift or anybody else. However, the comment by Shogan that has been noted in the article is just a complete nothing statement and Wikipedia does not exist to record such comments.

I note that you are responsible for 65% of the current article text, so I hope you won't mind if I ask you... (a) do you have some kind of conflict of interest in relation to either Shogan or the NARA? and (b) do you consider yourself some kind of gatekeeper who regulates the content on this article?

If the answers to those 2 questions are "no" then I can hardly see how you could object to the removals - especially as there is clearly no consensus in favour of inclusion (which is the main issue at stake here, as that is fundamental to Wikipedia content). Axad12 (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, although I have to respectfully disagree. In terms of contributing 65% of the text, I only did so to improve the article. I don't have a conflict of interest in relation to Shogan or NARA. I don't consider myself a gatekeeper who regulates article content either. I say it is far too early to say there is consensus without having discussion with more individuals apart from each of us. Each of us has our own opinion on this, so why not sharing this discussion with the WikiProjects listed on this page. If they agree with you, that's fine, I don't have an issue with that. I just don't want the discussion to just be between the two of us. Historyday01 (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

No, nor do I. But at present there is no consensus in favour of inclusion so I am going to remove the material (at least for now). If a consensus later emerges for inclusion then obviously the material can be reinstated at a later date. Axad12 (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

As a minor aside... I feel that the amount of coverage of the Censorship Allegations is WP:UNDUE and is close to turning the article into an article which is primarily about that specific issue. I strongly suspect that most reasonable users would probably like to see that material abbreviated.

Please note here: I am neutral. I don't want to see trivial positive material being included, but by the same token I don't want to see excessive material included in relation to negative coverage.

I deal with COI edit requests on a regular basis (working from the relevant volunteer queue). Based on that experience I would suggest that when the COI user said, above, The article titled Colleen Joy Shogan should provide a more comprehensive view of Dr. Shogan’s work at the agency during her tenure as Archivist of the United States, what they probably really meant was that they felt the article was very unbalanced in favour of the Censorship section and they were trying to add counterbalancing material.

The real answer here is not to balance inappropriate/excessive material but to get the article to a position where everything is reasonable, properly of encyclopaedic value, and accorded WP:DUE coverage.

(Copying in user:Usnatarchives for info.) Axad12 (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I would be fine with trimming of the censorship section. I can agree that getting the "article to a position where everything is reasonable, properly of encyclopaedic value" should be the ideal to strive for. Historyday01 (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

We see you have copied us in. Please let us know if you have specific questions that you would like us to address. Usnatarchives (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

No, just wanted to make you aware of the conversation. Axad12 (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep in mind that according to their talk page, their account has been indefinitely blocked. Historyday01 (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, that is a soft block due to username violation under WP:USERNAME. If they change the name of the account that can be resolved. Also, the reference to 'we' in their post above suggests that this is a shared account in violation of WP:SHAREDACCOUNT. Axad12 (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)