Talk:Office of Inspector General for the Department of Transportation
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.svg)
Edit conflict
[edit]Ok @Springee:, whats your beef with this? It seem to me that this page should have summaries of all major investigations by the IG and the fact that it currently does not isnt really a good enough argument for removing *all* of the information. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- See my comments in the next section. I don't mind the idea of having a section on significant investigations but they should be significant and close ended. The material here is recent, open ended and has limited sourcing. That's a problem. Springee (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- The larger contentions look well sourced to me, politico is a WP:RS is it not? I think we can pare it back a bit, not sure we need the committee statement. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- OK, I'm going to challenged you on your comment here [[1]]. Let's discuss how this could be fixed. I think the first question is should this article have a list of notable IGofDOT investigations and if so what counts as notable. I think a section on notable investigations could make sense as a subsection of the current investigation section. The previous consensus version was good in that it stated clearly what the IGofDOT investigates. I like Churchill's policy of having three examples/items in a speech. So if we had a Notable Investigations section can we find 3 or more examples? I mean the department is 40 years old so I would hope 2019 isn't the first time they did something. I would also propose that in each case we need something where the investigation resulted in some sort of noted outcome. The current example is poor in part because it effectively says accusations were made and they were based on source X. But to what end? Is the investigation on going? Did it decide there was wrong doing or did it die out? I mean if we had a crystal ball and could look 10 years in the future and if we saw this investigation went no where would we add it to the article in 2030? I'll try to find some examples if you are up for this change. Springee (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think for our purposes notable means covered in-depth by a WP:RS. I think we can condense what we have now into two tight sentences and give it a sub-heading and that will set a good precedent for how much coverage this sort of thing should get. Obviously if more happens and its covered in-depth by reliable sources we can add more information but all the detail isnt due at this point. I tried searching for more investigations/requests for investigation but google is being unhelpful as apparently the President ousted the DoT IG recently and thats taking up all the hits. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that it seems much of what is in the news today is RECENT material. Using a 2016 and earlier news search I found a number of articles talking about DOT OIG investigations. It seems like most are singular things. [[2]][[3]][[4]][[5]][[6]][[7]][[8]] These are good examples of the sorts of investigations the organization has been involved with and in most cases these aren't just allegations but actual completed investigations. However, I don't know how we would pick just a few as significant examples. As is I think we should remove the current material from this article. It looks a lot more like the highly partisan back and forth of DC these days and I don't see any evidence that it will amount to much in 10 years. Not every government related article needs to include a controversy, especially one that will be come stale once the Democrats retake power. Springee (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think for our purposes notable means covered in-depth by a WP:RS. I think we can condense what we have now into two tight sentences and give it a sub-heading and that will set a good precedent for how much coverage this sort of thing should get. Obviously if more happens and its covered in-depth by reliable sources we can add more information but all the detail isnt due at this point. I tried searching for more investigations/requests for investigation but google is being unhelpful as apparently the President ousted the DoT IG recently and thats taking up all the hits. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- OK, I'm going to challenged you on your comment here [[1]]. Let's discuss how this could be fixed. I think the first question is should this article have a list of notable IGofDOT investigations and if so what counts as notable. I think a section on notable investigations could make sense as a subsection of the current investigation section. The previous consensus version was good in that it stated clearly what the IGofDOT investigates. I like Churchill's policy of having three examples/items in a speech. So if we had a Notable Investigations section can we find 3 or more examples? I mean the department is 40 years old so I would hope 2019 isn't the first time they did something. I would also propose that in each case we need something where the investigation resulted in some sort of noted outcome. The current example is poor in part because it effectively says accusations were made and they were based on source X. But to what end? Is the investigation on going? Did it decide there was wrong doing or did it die out? I mean if we had a crystal ball and could look 10 years in the future and if we saw this investigation went no where would we add it to the article in 2030? I'll try to find some examples if you are up for this change. Springee (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- The larger contentions look well sourced to me, politico is a WP:RS is it not? I think we can pare it back a bit, not sure we need the committee statement. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
UNDUE material - May 2020
[edit]This article is a factual article about the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Transportation. Prior to the addition here [[9]] it was clear the article was a simple description of the founding of the office, it's rolls and responsibilities etc. It is totally undue to then make over half the section in investigations about one, recent investigation with limited sourcing. It would be better to have a section in the article pointing to discussions of investigations as they come up in other articles. If we are to expand this article to include investigations then we should have some suggestion for how and when to include. Certainly it should be more than a paragraph that lists accusations but no conclusions. That looks like an attempt to smear "the other side". Springee (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)