Talk:Monica Goodling

Details of Personnel activities

This source details for the first time some of Goodlings personnel actiivities. Not yet incorporated into the controversies section. Perhaps someone can create a paragraph out of the relevant non-standard inquiries and assessments Goodling conducted. -- Yellowdesk 11:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

notable?

Is it remarkable that Goodling attended religious colleges?

This should be discussed here on the talk page, not in the edit summaries.

My opinion, if that colleges are particularly religious, heck yes, that would be highly remarkable, and worthy of coverage in her article.

Cheers! Geo Swan 02:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Over-description of Messiah and Regent (full disclosure: I am a professor at Messiah, but was a WP editor before coming here) has lead to editors giving commentary on the two schools. Just today there's some back-and-forth about Regent's quality as a law school. When this page contains evaluations of the quality of the schools, that to me indicates POV. If Regent really is a bad (or good) school, that should be discussed at Regent's article. Discussing it here indicates to me that editors are trying to tie Regent's quality to Goodling's character, which is OR or POV or otherwise inappropriate.

As for pointing out that these are christian schools, I think that that may be helpful, but could be done without over-emphasis: maybe lead off the section with something like "All of Goodling's post-high school degrees were obtained from Christian schools" (I don't quite like the phrasing there, but you get the idea). Mention of Pat Robertson is OK I suppose, since he is (was) himself a fairly major political figure. We don't need to harp on college mottos or mission-statements, which are easily obtainable at their respective articles. Staecker 12:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. (Furthermore, that Messiah College is a Christian school is quite self-evident, and needs no elaboration. Anyone who understands English ought to be able to figure that out). -- Sholom 12:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the colleges deserve a brief description. 199.254.212.48 (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hard to believe, but some guess that it's a Jewish college. Staecker 13:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the references to "third tier" and "second tier" law schools, as I agree with Staecker that this is a POV commentary which is not appropriate in the context of discussing this person's credentials. I assume the "tiers" are from US news (they were unreferenced) but to use one magazine's rankings as some sort of definitive measure of school quality that one can toss in as an aside to someone's biography seems POV and unencyclopedic. I understand there is an underlying story about the Bush administration as a whole appointing more people from obscure religious institutions to positions which previously would have been filled by candidates from "top schools", but one person's biography is not the right place to play out that issue.-Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sourced information about Regent and evangelical influences

A little perspective on experience vs. education. -- Yellowdesk 13:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Savage, Charlie. Scandal puts spotlight on Christian law school: Grads influential in Justice Dept. Boston Globe, April 8, 2007. Retrieved May 17, 2007.
• Last, Jonathan. One Last Thing -- Attorneys scandal is not about firings Philadephia Inquirer, Sun, Apr. 01, 2007. Retreived May 17, 2007.
• Rosin, Hanna. The New Establishment: How Evangelicals Became Part of Washington's Fabric The Washington Post, May 25, 2007, page A19. Retreived may 25, 2007.

Notability continued

It was asked: Is it remarkable that Goodling attended religious colleges?

I think the better question is: Is it remarkable that Goodling attended THESE religious colleges AND THEN was NONETHELESS (or perhaps BECAUSE OF) able to no only get any job at all--considering the academic standing of these institutions--but was able to get one of the highest jobs in the land.

Here's another question: How many other non-evangelistic law schools were able to place a grad in one of the highest positions in government that controls a multi-trillion dollar economy so few years after receiving accreditation?

Answer: None.

Why was this one able to do it?

How many other lawyers out there enrolled at a law school the year it became accredited and then was able to get such a job? Not many if any.

Note that her class (other than her because she transfered in) only attended the school as an accredited school for two of thei three years. Her classmates spent one year of their 3-year education at an unaccredited school. What kind of students does an unaccredited TRADE school--which offers almost zero job prospects--attract? Not the top students or even the savvy stdents--who would spend--borrow-- that kind of money to live on if not just for tuition--whe the prospect f getting a job is so low, and there are accredited schools with extremely low entrance requirements in every state?

The thing is, Goodling's chosen education path tells more about her than anything else.

She is a highly view-point-motivated person.

And she is the highest person in government to invoke her Fifth Am. right since Oliver North during the Iran-Contra scandal of the Reagan administration. RUReady2Testify 18:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Claims of "obviousness"

I agree with User:Staecker — that whatever coverage we give to Goodling's education should fully conform to WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER

• I strongly disagree that the religious nature of her school is "obvious" to English speakers.
• I strongly disagree that the wikipedia articles should only be directed to native speakers of English speakers.
• I strongly disagree that an individual's notion of "obviousness" is a good yardstick for whether material merits coverage in the wikipedia. What is "obvious" is highly, highly subjective. Further, in my experience, when I hear a claim that something is so obvious it doesn't require explanation, it is almost always a sign that, either, (1) my correspondent can't explain themselves; or, worse (2) they are actively trying to trick me. My experience that when I have tried to gently push my correspondent to try to explain something they claim is too obvious to require explanation they are likely to respond with ridicule, or burst out in a rage.

The assumption that readers can tell the nature of the institutions from their name, is highly Americo-centric, and is a grave disservice to readers from other parts of the world. I live in Ontario, just across the border with New York state. There are no prominent private, religious colleges up here. This phenomenon is virtually unknown. There were some private religious colleges up here fifty years ago that were not completely obscure. Degree granting institutions requires an act in the legislature. Most of the religious colleges decided to make some minor compromises in their mandate in return for accepting government funding.

So, please try to be more conscious that what seems universally "obvious" to you may, in fact, merely reflect your unconscious local bias.

I wrote an essay on further problems I have with claims of obviousness. Geo Swan 15:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite a response to rebut an irrelevent throwaway line (that was in parentheses) that was completely non-essential to my position, and could therefore be disregarded. In fact, I was supporting (and it seems you are, too) the suggestions of User:Staecker, viz. we can note it's a Christian school, but how that school fared in a moot court competition in 2006, and other such details of Regent and Messiah, are not particularly relevant to this article. (Furthermore, it's not such a stretch to think that a person who is reading an article written in English understands English. It's not like the word "Messiah" is a colloquialism) -- Sholom 13:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Quoting mission statements

I wrote above that I agreed with Staecker that the coverage of Goodling's educational background should fully comply with all the wikipedia's policies.

Compliance with these policies prohibits wikipedians from inserting their own opinions and interpretations of the institutions. Quoting or paraphrasing opinions and interpretations that properly cited authoritative, verifiable sources is allowed, indeed, I believe, encouraged.

Similarly, I believe, quoting the institution's mission statements fully complies with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:VER, and is a good alternative for wikipedians who would otherwise be tempted to insert their own opinion. Geo Swan 15:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Many schools in the US are religious, but only one was founded by Pat Robertson, who is notable and I would suggest, so is his school.Suzukisue (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a hagiography

In my opinion there is an important section missing from WP:NOT. IMO there should be a section entitled WP:NOT#wikipedia is not a hagiography. I regularly encounter other wikipedians who want to suppress the coverage of material they think reflects poorly on their faith, or their nation.

I engaged in a long, long struggle to have the wikipedia cover the verifiable fact that dozens of the Guantanamo captives are being held because they were suspected of association with the Tablighi Jamaat movement.

Wikipedians who were admirers of the Tablighi movement routinely removed the US allegation. When challenged over doing so, if they responded at all, they would defend their actions on the grounds that the US allegagions were flimsy, ridiculous, displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the non-political nature of the movement. They pointed out that the movement had millions of pilgrims participating in its exchange programs per year.

My position was that the opinion of wikipedians on the credibility of the US allegations was irrelevant. Insertion of opinions on the credibility of the allegations was a violation of the wikipedia's policies, unless they were written from a neutral point of view, and cited authoritative, verifiable sources. In my opinion when adminers of the Tablighi movement were POV-pushing when they removed material that properly cited verifiable, authoritative sources.

The wikipedia should not be a hagiography. No one should let other wikipedians, no matter how well meaning they might be, suppress material that they think reflects pporly on they nation, faith, or pet cause or favorite personality, if that material was properly cited and written from a neutral point of view.

Similarly, it can be documented from verifiable, authoritative sources that, for the first months of his administration at least, Paul Bremer only hired people who had submitted their resumes to the controversial Heritage Foundation. There were wikipedians who fought diligently to protect Bremer's reputation, without regard to the wikipedia's policies.

I am concerned here, because, on the surface at least, the efforts to suppress material about the religious nature of Goodling's education remind me of these earlier attempts to subvert the wikipedia's policies.

• I call on those who remove material they consider controversial to supply a detailed explanation here on the talk page.
• I call on them to consider raising their concern here on the talk page first, and attempting to initiate a dialogue. Unexplained excisions, or poorly explained excisions, serve only as a trigger for ugly edit-warring.
• I call on them to consider good faith rewrites of the material that raised their concern, instead of excision.

Cheers! Geo Swan 15:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Good points above by Geo Swan, and I agree entirely (especially with "obviousness", now that you bring it to my attention (Christ's College, Cambridge, anyone?)). I'm sorry if my edits have seemed hagiographic. I still think that mission statements are a bit too much for this article, but I'm willing to give that up if there's consensus. Staecker 15:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I also think mission statements are too much for this article. They belong in descriptions of the colleges themselves. If someone wants to make a point that those from Christian law schools were primarily hired -- that's fine. But including the mission statement, or where a school finished in a moot court competition (particularly when its years after Goodling graduated) is way too tangential. -- Sholom 13:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Monica Goodling's religious beliefs are relevant to her education. --70.112.78.2 (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Educational history

I don't think her education history should indicate that her law school was founded by Pat Robertson. I think there should be a link to Regent University Law School and leave it at that. In any other biography discussing a JD that mentions the person's law school, the article does not mention who founded the law school. Also, it is irrelevant to indicate the law school's standing. I think that sort of information is useful in the larger article about the controversy in that it may shed light on the Bush administration, Goodling's potential bias and lack of qualification for the job, etc., but here it is more biased than helpful.

Further, the parenthetical about the 2006 ABA Moot Court competition is completely irrelevant to Monica Goodling unless, maybe, she was involved in the competition - which she wasn't as she graduated in 1999. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.28.235.129 (talk • contribs). 18:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree the competition should be out. Pat Robertson is (was) a fairly big figure in the republican party, and thus might be relevant. Staecker 18:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's worthwhile noting both that: (a) Messiah is a Christian School; and (b) Regent was founded by Pat Robertson; both for the reasons that Staecker notes above, and because there are allegations that DOJ was stacked with Regent graduates and the like. (OTOH, I think that any further discussion of Messiah or Regent beyond that is tangential) -- Sholom 19:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a statistic mentioning the percentage of Ms. Goodling's classmates who passed the bar exam on their first try is a very significant detail for this story and belongs on the main page. I'm not sure the exact number, but I believe something like 60% of Regent graduates do not pass the bar. This is a very large number, and I think under new or proposed new standards this would prevent Regent from being an accredited law school.

Although pass rates for bar exams vary greatly from state to state, every state works hard to ensure that they are an accurate barometer of legal knowledge. The fact that so many Regent students fail bar exams indicates to me that one could objectively say that Regent does a poor job of teaching the law. I would think this significant considering Ms. Goodling was recently required to testify about the legality of her actions at the Justice Department. -- 21:33, May 23, 2007

I don't think Robertson or the number of people who failed the bar exam should be put in the education section. They are both facts and both significant, but I believe the both lack relevance to Goodling. Unless its relevant to a particular controversy, who started the school and how others did at that school has no implications on Goodling's personal abilities. It simply implies a speculative point of view. If it is relevant to a particular controversy, it belongs in that controversy's section. --Ndlovunkulu 05:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

M.Neff: I'm the person who initially added the comments about Regent's... I had cited the information in two ways (NY Times and US News & World Report), but those citations seem to have been removed. It's ludicrous to think that Monica Goodling would have been appointed to her position at the DoJ and subsequently as liaison between the White House and the DoJ if she had not graduated from Regents. It's clear that the Bush Administration has emphasized graduates from this Law School for one reason -- their allegiance (as opposed to the high quality of their training). Thus, it's highly relevant to the Wikipedia entry for Ms. Goodling that her law school, despite being lowly ranked and poorly regarded in the field of jurisprudence, is inordinately represented in this country's Dept. of Justice. Her appointment (and that of an additional 150 grads) says less about Regent's quality and more about the Bush Administration's practices... But it most certainly says something very important about HOW GOODLING OBTAINED HER POSITION (AND INFLUENCE) in our government. How can this be viewed as a tangential issue?

I agree that her educational background is highly unusual and one of the central points of interest in the story -- a shift in government from meritocracy to clanish mediocrity is summarized by her biography. It is the central part of the story.

I can't seem to log in but here's my comment. The education section is paltry. ON'es education is arguably the most important thing in one's development after parents and siblings. YOur education makes you who you are to a very large degree. To the extent that you already are somebody, i.e., an individual, by the time you choose your college and or university, the choice alone tells the world who you are, and then of course it furthers your development into your chosen university and chosen identity (i.e. a Harvard man, a Yale man, etc.). That some users here repeatedly delete Goodling's education down to the bare bones is without a doubt motivated by some felt need to hide it. When have you ever seen a biography of anyone worth reading about that has only 3 sentences on their education? Never.

The education section in Goodling's case is particularly relevant for several easons, including that (1) it is highly unusual, (2) is is highly unusual for someone with such a background to get a job as a lawyer in the DoJ, and (3) it seems that as Regent U. seems quite proud of the fact that it has 150 grads in the Bush adminstration, Goodling's educatonal background is highly relevant to her place in the government and her place in the current controversy. It is quite clear that she would not have got the job if she had attended any other law school that she was qualified to get into. The fact that she went to Regent seems to be the most relevant thing about her. A discussion of her istittions should not be deleted simply because someone can link to it a description of the college or law school. For one, that logic would argue for deleting the whole article as if no doubt is all available elsewhere. Second, the linked article does not discuss Goodling ad her time there her clasases and her friends and professsors, her grades, her influences, etc. The Goodling article in time should do all of that, but it cannot get off the ground if ever time someone starts to expand the section with the slightest discusion of the school, it gets deleted.

The education section should be at least 1,000 words, and it vcan't get there if the same person keeps deleting it down to less thanwhat woyld appeare on a resume. A biography is not a resume. A resume is the shortest possible skeleton of sales pitch for a job. A resume's education section does not attempt to explain who you are and how you got that way. Look up anybody interesting or important ans see if their bio reads like a bad resume. The only ones that do are the ones being "edited" for political purposes by "editors" who then claim that a full bio is "POV" and has no place! No place???? How is it that one's education is not important to understanding a person? How s it that this person who's bio would not even be here in Wikipedia if she did not have that particular education, can have a bio that won't discuss it? Absurd. OBVIOUSLY Goodling's education section is bein policed and censored by someone with a very strong and sinister agenda. This should stop immediately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.156.193.106 (talk • contribs). 11:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a verifiable source that says that it is quite clear that she would not have got the job if she had attended any other law school that she was qualified to get into, then you may by all means add this opinion to the article. If you can find a source that says that Regent is trying to stack the DoJ or the Bush administration with its graduates, this would be a good addition too.

But surely you're not serious when you say that the fact that she went to Regent seems to be the most relevant thing about her? I'd say the most relevant thing about her has something to do with her time at the DoJ. Do you really think that this article should detail her time there her clasases and her friends and professsors, her grades, her influences? Do you even know that her grades are worth commenting on? What if she got average grades? Staecker 11:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The information was deleted because I thought the particular information was irrelevant, not because I don't think education is important. Sorry, I should have commented on that to avoid you having to write that whole first paragraph, but now that you know, hopefully we can focus on whether the deleted information was relevant.

When determining relevance, I think it's important to ask the questions who, what, when, when where and why with respect to the specific topic. Who educated Monica Goodling? What school was she educated at? Where? Why was she educated? How was she educated or maybe how did her education go? If you were asked how did your education go, I think it would off topic to say "well UVA was founded by Thomas Jefferson" or "my school became accredited in 1996." Those answer the question "what is Regent University" or "what is Messiah College" and thus belong on that particular wikipedia page.

None of this is to say it doesn't belong anywhere on Goodling's page. "What was the controversy and how did it happen?" might be a question it answers, which would make it appropriate to put in that controversy's section. When answering questions about Monica Goodling's education though, I think a description of Regent answers any of the relevant questions. --Ndlovunkulu 17:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

One person here is responsible for deleting truthful statements that explain the highly relevant circumstances of this person's education. The fact that one person--who is associated with one of the institutions in question--has repeatedly delted relevant, truthful interesting and political information about this political person (hired by a political appointee of the president and serves at the pleasure of the president as the surrounding events remind us) demonstrates that the deleted information is relevant.

What more do you need to show relevance than the fact that one associated, interested party is adamant about removing the content, and polices this site hourly?

And it is true that repeated deletion--down to nothing--prevents any expansion of the section. It is quite possible that these deleted words might be delted later after their temporary existence provides the seed for further development of the section. Nonetheless, the issue of the nature of these institutions is relevant, and is not widely known and therefore belongs.

Additionally, why do you want to make the reader dig around elsewhere for relevant info that is found in every other biography in existence? Why does the person from Regent U. want the reader to hunt elsewhere for the info? Answer: Because almost nobody will hunt for it, amd the info is thus hidden, made unavailable, and therefore censored.

The person from Regent is a censor and should be barred from further editing of this entry.

By the way, it would indeed be relevant if she got average grades. Why would it not be? If someone is average or performed at the average that is something about that person.

Of course, you could also go further and explain that while she had greater or lesser (as the case may be) than average talent, her performance (for example) was OSTENSIBLY average but could be considered superior when one takes into account all the circumstances of (for example) working her way through school, dealing with a family tragedy, overcomming dislexia, and so on. BUT EVEN so, even if there is nothing like that to explain an average performance, it is STILL relevant. Maybe even more so. If she was an average student at an average school we need to know that. For one, it imlpies that she was not superior and that therefore it is not the case that she could have gone to the top school in the land but chose her school based on other considerations. This is only one of many many many reasons why an average performance is relevant. I can't believe I have to explain this. Read a bio of Churchill, Einstein, Hitler, anybody who was average--IT'S IN THERE!

It is unbelievably frustrating trying to explain the most rudimentary aspects of what is relevant in a biography. It is absolutely unbelievable that this discussion is taking place. The only reason for it is that a censor with a personal interest in the content of this entry is at work in our midst. This censor offers spurious arguments that the most basic things about understanding a person are not relevant, and others without much experience at biography are buying it in whole or in part.

I would say yes, this person's education is the most relevant thing about this person. Those who say it is the scandal are missing the point--Goodling would not be taking part in the scandal or its resolution if she were not an atty at Justice; she would not be an atty at Justice if she were not a lawyer; she would not be a lawyer had she not gone to law school; and--- on another syllogistic track that I hope I don't need to recite--she most likely would not be a lawyer at Justice if she had not gone to Regent.

NOW, you say, that is opinion. YES!!!!!! But I am saying it here in the discussion page! The FACTS that are chosen as relevant for ANY FACTUAL DISCUSSION OR EXPLANATION OF ANYTHING are based on someone's OPINION of their importance. WHY IS THIS PERSON EVEN IN WIKIPEDIA???? Because someone is of the OPINION that is is important to put her bio here. IT WAS NEVER AN UNADORNED PRIOR FACT IN THE WORLD THAT MONICA GOODLING BE BIO'd IN WIKIPEDIA! The choosing of which facts to report is opinion.

Are you people out of school yet??? Here's a clue--the ENTIRE NEWSPAPER is the editorial section. What is there or not there is based on an editorial decision. The mere existence of books that get published and then promoted or sold in stores is an editorial decision. That is the POINT of Wikipedia--that editorial decisions ARE NOT MADE BY THE POWERS THAT BE or even the powers that WOULD BE, like Regent U and our little censor here.

BTW I agree with the person who disputed the claims of obviousness. When I was an undergraduate many years ago, my favorite philosophy professor told me the same thing. "When someone claims that something is obvious," he said, "it is never obvious to me." He was one of the smartest guys I ever knew and certainly no one I have met in all these years as a lawyer and writer in in Washington has even come close. I can add my own colloraly to this little bit of wisdom: When someone claims that something is obvious, it is a bullying tactic to avoid an explanation or avoid having to defend a position. The tactic is to embarrass the hearer or target into thinking that if he persists in asking why, he will appear less smart than the others. Claims of obviousness are very similar to the Emperor's New Clothes. Only the charlatan can see how obviously beautiful the emperor's clothes are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RUReady2Testify (talk • contribs).

Which "one person" is it that you think is trying to control the bio section? It seems that there is a discussion happening here among several different people which shows some consensus that the education section should be more or less like it is. I hope that I'm not the person who seems to be controlling things, but I'll apologize if I seem to be dominating the page. Do you actually know that a "person from Regent" is editing this article? I'm not from Regent... Of course I do have my own viewpoint, but I (and I believe everybody else who's commented above) really want the page to reflect consensus rather than my own ideas.

Your points about average education being important are well made (though you might check out WP:CIVIL). The problem is that this type of information (to my knowledge) has never appeared in the article. Discussions of Monica Goodling's education would be great, but I've only seen discussions of Regent as an institution. This article should focus on Goodling.

If you think that certain aspects of Regent's program must have rubbed off on Goodling in particular ways, then this sentiment needs to be cited in a verifiable source. If you are just making these connections myself, then it is original research, which we don't do here. Even worse, if you think that the connections are obvious... well you already know about that. If the whole issue is really as clear as you make it out to be, surely you can find some sources which articulate exactly the kinds of things which you'd like to see in the article. Stick some good references in there, and they won't be removed (because I and others will fight for their inclusion). Staecker 19:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

RUReady, I don't understand what exactly you are saying. Perhaps it would be more helpful if you were more specific and less passionate. If you're referring to the major changes that were reversed last night, that was me and I have no connection whatsoever to Regent or Messiah. If that's not what you're referring to, please check the history page and let us know. --Ndlovunkulu 19:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Would somebody please post an accurate description of the poor quality of education offered at Regent law school? Honestly, I don't know why anyone would not think that school's reputation is relevant to Monica Goodling. In any conversation I have, or news story I hear referencing Monica Goodling, the fact that the school is fourth tier, or that the majority of graduates fail their bar exams, is mentioned. If you really think that these facts mischaracterize Ms. Goodling, then please offer some facts that make her exceptional. Was she first in her class? Did she pass the bar with flying colors? Has she been published? But the fact that her school is SO awful really does create a prima facie case for its relevance, and I don't like at all that anyone should want to censor this information from the main page. It's not like the main page is so long as to make it unreadable. There's barely anything on it. If there really is an argument to be made that this girl has above-average legal abilities, then that argument belongs on the main page. -- |Unsigned 63.85.45.224| 21:52, 25 May, 2007}}

A mere click on the school name reveals that many of the items under discussion already appear on the Regent University article, hence those items would be superfluous on the Goodling article. -- Yellowdesk 04:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is that making a reader click on the school name is censorship.

A brief description here is appropriate and necessary.

The fact that such brief descriptions are immediately deleted by the Wikifascists is overwhelming evidence of their importance.

No one is so hypervigilant about deleting unnecessary extraneous words in the article about carrots for example. Yes it is true than a lot of information about carrots can be found elsewhere and a mere link could be provided. But the editors of the carrots entry-lacking strong subversive political motivations--have found it appropriate to provide readers who came HERE with answers HERE, rather than make them hop all over the place to retrieve a few additional words on everything that is mentioned.

The point of an encyclopedia entry is to provide the information in ONE PLACE.

No one will click on the school name to find out the things that they do not know that they do not know (to paraphrase Rumsfeld). In other words, no one is going to click Regent or Messiah because they will think that only need to click that link to find out typical school details (square acreage) not releveant her. If you have a relevant fact put it in the entry.

The deleters are claiming that it is not relevant that the school is a Christian Evangelist school when in fact it is highly relevant.

Messiah is a Christian school. This is not a fact--this is a lie by omission. Georgetown University, where Bill Clinton received his degree, is a Christan school.

Yale, which should be obvious by its name to anyone who speaks English, is a Christian school and was founded for the specific purpose of offering an alternative to the secular learning of colleges such as Harvard.

Messiah and Regent are unlike traditional Christian schools. That is why they exist. That is why people go there. It is highly relevant that Goodling's education came from these institutions.

It is also highly relevant that she chose this type of institution over one with high academic standing--this is not to imply that her ablity was less than that of students at Harvard or Yale, or that the faculty is of lower quality. It is a mere fact that they do not (or not yet) enjoy high academic status. It is also a fact that high status of the instituton is the primary desired trait by nearly all applicants to other schools, and the main requirement for a job.

Goodling went against the conventional wisdom of going to the best schools for personal reasons and ultimately was rewarded with one of the most prestigious jobs in her field.

How could that not be relevant?

How can anyone pretend that her education section is typical?

The typical lawyer at Justice has the typical resume: there are about 10 clleges and 5 law schools that you can find on those resumes. Anything else leaps out--but only if you are a insider.

An encyclopedia is not written for insiders. It is written to explain.

That the explanation has been deleted over and over is vandalism.

These "editors" should be barred from editing this article further.

Certainly the professor from Messiah should be barred. That should be obvious--that a prof at a small school has an interest in the performance of the school's graduates is not difficult to see. That a prof at an ideologically motivated, hghly vocal and even militant minority, has an even greater interest in how the grads of the school are treated in the media is not a stretch in the least and should be clear to anyone who thinks himself qualified to edit this page. RUReady2Testify 17:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been up-front about my connections to Messiah, and I would encourage any criticism about particular edits that I may have made that seem to indicate a conflict of interest. You may want to have a look at WP:AGF. Does my tone throughout this discussion suggest somebody who's trying to nefariously work my own agenda into the article? Surely I would've kept my place of work to myself in that case...

But most of the discussion here has been about Regent, which is ideologically a very different place. (See how many ideological similarities you can find between Pat Robertson and the anabaptist movement which founded Messiah.) By the way, I think you mean evangelical rather than evangelistic, but you will find that evangelicalism is a movement which Messiah does not very well fit into.

Perhaps we can get back to improving the article? I'll reiterate my promise to fight for quality additions to the article, which don't seem to be rising out of all this debate. Staecker 21:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I now call on Staecker and Ndlovunkulu to (1) read the WP policies on editing, including vandalism and conflict of interest. And while you're at it, personal attacks and not biting newbies and (2) to refrain from further editing and commenting or discussing this article. If they do not cease, I will request the opinion of a neutral third party as to whether they are suffering from a disabling conflict of interest, and whether their edits constitute vandalism. I have just read the policies and I believe they both have disabling conflicts and both have committed acts of vandalism. Therefore please desist from making any edits or comments on this article. 141.156.193.106 07:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Apparently I am not signed in, I am having trouble with that again, so I'll just type my so you know who is making this request. RUReady2Testify.

I am familiar with these policies, and I take them seriously- especially the ones about personal attacks. I'm sorry if you feel I was biting you as a newbie- I really didn't intend to. I welcome any other opinions about whether I or any other user has committed acts of vandalism in the article or inappropriate behavior here on the discussion page. (By the way, my participating in discussion here is not in violation of policy, and I will continue to participate if the discussion is fruitful.) Staecker 12:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I also take seriously Wikipedia policies but I believe you're taking this whole discussion too personally. We aren't "wikifacists." We're just trying to keep a neutral tone. Reasonable people can have disagreements about what's considered an improvement. Such is not considered vandalism. I'm also still confused as to why I have a CoI. I've stated above I have no ties to either Regent or Messiah, and I have no ties to the DoJ either. If any of my comments were taken as newbie biting, please forgive me. That was not my intention. I'm a newbie myself. This is only the third article I've worked on.

As for the article, I don't think the statements under consideration are relevant because they relate to the debate about the quality of the education offered by Regent and Messiah. It is not fact that the school is "SO awful" as one poster above put. This is an opinion and any facts relating to this opinion should be debated on the Regent and Messiah page. As I've said before, I think it can be relevant if we relate it to a specific controversy and put it in that controversy's section. --Ndlovunkulu 15:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Ndl just keep it neutral. It's a known fact that Regent is founded by Pat Robertson just click on the school. This is a biography. Every school has a founder. Not relevant. Also missing American University education as she transfered to Regent. I'm editing that part. Wikidash 08:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A big part of why Goodling is notable is not just the misconduct in which she engaged. She, like FEMA director Michael Brown and other political appointees in the Bush administration, was wholly unqualified for her job and was given the job based purely on political and ideological loyalty, not ability. The fact that she went to Messiah College and Regents University demonstrates this: neither is a well regarded school or has good academic standards, but both are through purveyors of right-wing religious ideology. She was hired because of that ideological background, not because of competence, experience or academic credentials. What it led to was an unqualified hack engaging in political favoritism and discrimination in the federal agency that is charged with doing justice and is prohibited by law from engaging in that sort of political favoritism and discrimination. Her background, especially her education, is a major part of her story and what happened.

Note too that Regents was a pipeline for the Bush administration to import many Pat Robertson disciples into the federal government for the same reasons Goodling was at Justice. "When the Bush administration came into power, it looked to Regent for a reliable pool of well-groomed Republican ideologues eager to wage the culture war from the inside. The former dean of Regent's Robertson School of Government, Kay Coles James, was promptly installed as the Director of the Office of Personnel Management. . . ." [1]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.117.130 (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Member of the Federalist Society

Monica Goodling stated that she is a member of the Federalist Society.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Monica Goodling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071127151516/http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6625855,00.html to http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6625855,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Monica Goodling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070503080116/http://news.nationaljournal.com:80/articles/070430nj1.htm to http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070430nj1.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070406/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070429120447/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18308547/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18308547/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070618031659/http://www.gonzaleswatch.com:80/2007/05/11/judge-oks-granting-monica-goodling-immunity-for-testimony-in-us-attorney-firings-probe/ to http://www.gonzaleswatch.com/2007/05/11/judge-oks-granting-monica-goodling-immunity-for-testimony-in-us-attorney-firings-probe/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/GoodlingII070523.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Monica Goodling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070430nj1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926222952/http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/others-charge/ to http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/others-charge/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070601015025/http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/goodling-5th/ to http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/goodling-5th/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930154847/http://www.dailyindia.com/show/138245.php/Former-Gonzales-aide-under-investigation to http://www.dailyindia.com/show/138245.php/Former-Gonzales-aide-under-investigation
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gonzaleswatch.com/2007/05/11/judge-oks-granting-monica-goodling-immunity-for-testimony-in-us-attorney-firings-probe/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070601170045/http://www.gonzaleswatch.com/2007/05/30/doj-inspector-general-glenn-fine-expands-improper-hiring-probe-of-goodling/ to http://www.gonzaleswatch.com/2007/05/30/doj-inspector-general-glenn-fine-expands-improper-hiring-probe-of-goodling/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)