Talk:Lois Lerner

Article

As of 5/24/2013 Lois Lerner is now a public figure. Simply stating that she does not warrant her own page yet is a matter of opinion. Google news search of her name yields 53,200 results. I do not see the advantage of delaying the creation of her own page. Azcat90 (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a matter of opinion, and your opinion is clearly against the consensus. No less than 3 other editors have decided that this page should be redirected, in compliance with BLP policy. Now you are edit warring against that consensus. You are practically begging for a block. Federales (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, please take up my suggestion - if you believe that this person is encyclopedic and there are sufficient reliable sources to develop a complete biography that is not just about one event, you may create a draft in your userspace at User:Azcat90/Lois Lerner and develop the article there. Then, you may attempt to gain a consensus from the community to move that draft into articlespace, if the community believes that the draft satisfies our biographical policies.

I am willing to be convinced and to change my mind, but you're going to have to develop more of an article than a copy-paste from an event she spoke at and two links to articles about the IRS scandal. The place to do that is your userspace. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I have protected the redirect for two weeks. -- Y not? 13:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Back to the OP and first and second follow-up. I came to this page from a google "lois lerner's employment status". No agenda, just looking for some information as it related to an off-site post. Not surprised to find the en.wikipedia as the top return. For the sake of a time reference, this followed the revelation that the lost emails had been recovered. I didn't note an archived talk page and wonder where this consensus determination was located. So, while I didn't find it in the article, I skimmed it in the top 3 google synopsys returns that she retired. That might be a pertinent thing to add. The reader is last left with the fact that she was placed on administrative leave. --Geneb1955^Talk 06:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC) --edit to add, I did find the information I was looking for in the redirect. This seems cumbersome and if she is that insignificant in her role of the redirect target, then why is there even an article for her? No Lois Lerner article, then google would have returned (I assume) the article that contained her information -- the redirect. </off soapbox> First time submit.....There is an error in fact in the article. The federal government was an early user of PROFS. Here is Wikipedia sentence about PROFS. Earlier PROFS, DISOSS and Office/36[edit] OfficeVision/VM was originally named PROFS (for PRofessional OFfice System) and was initially made available in 1981. Before that it was a PRPQ (Programming Request for Price Quotation), an IBM administrative term for "not quite supported" software.2601:246:4603:43CA:6026:6A51:1BFA:8B14 (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Lerner not a political figure?

In her personal life section it says she is not viewed as a political figure. Aside from being an indefensible use of the passive voice ( viewed by whom?), this is clearly controversial. I would like to edit it to make it clear it is not a unanimous view by a long stretch, or at least use identify the agent. Indeed, this passage talks about her being a registered Democrat, and then quotes someone saying she did not have a political bone in her body, and so on. This seems inconsistent at best. If you are really a completely apolitical person, you don't register with a political party. 58.106.70.195 (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing with the sources in the article. That's not really your proper place as a Wikipedia editor. Look for reliable, previously published third party sources on that. The fact that you as a Wikipedia editor consider a statement "controversial" is not enough.

And, I'm not following the logic of saying that if you are really a completely apolitical person, you don't register with a political party. Under that line of reasoning, everyone who registers as a Democrat or Republican is "political." The term would become virtually meaningless. That's probably not what the term "political person" means as used in the article.

Which brings us to the next question: Exactly what does the term "political person" mean as used in the article. It's not defined, of course.

You make a good point about "identifying the agent" (by that I assume you mean identify the person who claims that Lerner is apolitical). The article could probably be improved on that point. Famspear (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It would not be my place to put my private views into the article. It is quite within my rights to question whether the chosen sources reflect the whole issue. In some sense this has to be done to write an article.I don't think an unbiased person with a passing knowledge of Lerner would question that there are plenty of sources, some as reliable as those quoted no doubt, that would question the claim she is apolitical.

If someone is apolitical it suggests he or she has no interest in politics at all, or at least hardly any interest. I'm not an American, and I understand it is a little more common and easier to register your affiliation there than to join a political party in some other countries. Still, if you have actually registered as a Democrat this doesn't suggest you are apolitical. Someone who is apolitical doesn't register with a political party. I wouldn't think this was controversial, really.

58.106.64.119 (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that what you're saying is that you take it that when a writer or speaker uses the word "apolitical" to describe someone, the writer or speaker intends to mean that the person "has no interest in politics at all." The problem with that theory is that this is your interpretation of the word "apolitical." The writer or speaker who uses that word may or may not be using that word in that way. For example, I believe almost everyone above the age of, say, twenty years, has at least some interest in politics. The problem with your formulation is the use of the words "at all." You're trying to take an all or nothing approach that really does not reflect reality.

The term apolitical person as used by many people in the United States really means a person who has no substantial connection to political affairs. It doesn't mean absolutely no connection or interest at all.

Under your definition, anyone who ever had enough interest in politics to even read a news report about an election could not be considered "apolitical." Indeed, under your definition, anyone who registered as a voting Democrat or a voting Republican could not be considered "apolitical." Indeed, anyone who ever voted at all could not be considered "apolitical" under that definition. That kind of definition would make the term pretty much meaningless.

This brings us to the basic point: Words can have both denotative meanings and connotative meanings.

You are using the word "apolitical" in a denotative sense -- which, in this case, is a sort of "all or nothing" sense. But many people don't use the word in this way.

Many people may use the term in a connotative sense -- in this case, to mean a person who has more than a mere passing interest in politics, or a person who has a substantial connection to political affairs or events. That is the more commonly used sense in which I have seen the word used. Famspear (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The connotative sense in which many Americans use the term "political" to describe a person is: "adept at, sensitive to, or engrossed in politics". Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 890, G. & C. Merriam Co. (8th ed. 1976). Thus, the term "apolitical" -- in this sense -- is used to describe a person who is not adept at, not sensitive to, or not engrossed in politics -- in other words, a person who has no substantial connection to political affairs. That is the connotative sense in which the source apparently used the term to describe Lois Lerner. The source was not trying to say that Lerner had never read an article about politics, or that Lerner had never voted, or that Lerner had absolutely no interest in politics. Famspear (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your statements: "Someone who is apolitical doesn't register with a political party. I wouldn't think this was controversial, really." Here in the United States, that would definitely be considered a controversial statement. You indicated that you're not an American, so perhaps you're not familiar with the situation in the United States.

In many places in the United States, you "register" under a particular political party simply by voting in that party's primary election.

When I grew up in Louisiana many years ago, the only way you could vote in a primary election (as opposed to a general election) was to vote in a Democratic Party Primary Election -- which by definition made you a registered Democrat. The reason? There was no such thing as a "Republican Primary Election" in Louisiana at that time. There was virtually no Republican Party in Louisiana at that time (the late 1950s and early 1960s).

But, voting in the Democratic Primary didn't mean that you were liberal. It didn't mean you were conservative. It didn't mean that you had any interest in politics beyond simply wanting to exercise your right to vote. Further, at that time, almost everyone voted for Democratic Party candidates -- for the simple reason that those were almost the only candidates. In the general elections in Louisiana back then, however, you could vote for a Republican candidate -- particularly in the elections for President, where you actually had both Republican and Democratic candidates.

I don't live in Louisiana any more, and the situation there changed long ago. There is a strong, viable Republican Party there today. But, even in Texas today, where I now live, registering as a Republican or as a Democrat really does not mean much more than the fact that you are voting in the Primary Election for that party. Regardless of which party primary you vote in, you use the same voting machine at the same polling (voting) place. That in and of itself does not necessarily make you a "political" person in the ordinary sense of "adept at, sensitive to, or engrossed in politics". Famspear (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, apolitical suggests that you don't take much of an interest in politics at all. Yes, it may be on a spectrum but, even in the US, if you are registering with a party and wanting to vote in their primary it suggests some real, if limited, political interest. If you are apolitical, why would you want to vote in the primary of a political party? I wouldn't go so far as to suggest an apolitical person wouldn't vote at all, though it suggests some apathy, but to go to the trouble of registering so you can vote in a party's internal choosing of its candidates suggests political interests.

Some people quoted in some sources might consider her as very apolitical, but it is this article that has singled out these views about her. To place them right next to her declared political affiliation just seems a blatantly inconsistent perspective on her. 58.106.64.119 (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. Let's assume that it IS a "blatantly inconsistent perspective" on her. That's not really a valid objection. In fact, that's pretty much how it's supposed to be in this particular case. Here's why.

According to reliable sources, some people consider Lois Lerner to be "apolitical." Granted, other reliable sources might instead consider Lois Lerner to be a very politically oriented person. As Wikipedia editors, we are not here to try to reconcile the opposing views of sources that vehemently disagree with each other. Instead, we are here to report on what opposing, often biased but reliable sources say -- not to take sides on which view is correct or which view is incorrect.

And, although you haven't raised this specific issue, I'll point out that Neutral Point of View in Wikipedia does NOT mean that the sources themselves cannot be biased. Reliable sources can most certainly be strongly biased. One of the basic tenets of Wikipedia is that bias in a reliable source is not, in and of itself, objectionable. This is often a difficult concept for newcomers to grasp.

Think about it for a moment. The main reason that Lois Lerner is notable enough for a Wikipedia article is the IRS controversy mentioned in the article -- where conservative Republicans essentially took the position that Lerner was suspected of having a strong liberal bias and that Lerner herself was part of a nefarious, evil effort to use the IRS to block or at least delay the granting of tax exempt status to various organizations on the basis of the conservative views of those organizations. By contrast, the sources quoted in the article (in the material about which you seem to be having so much trouble) are essentially implying the very opposite: something along the lines of, "no, Lerner was apolitical."

The point is that it is not your proper role as a Wikipedia editor to try to shape the article to provide a "consistent" view of Lerner in the article. That would be considered prohibited Original Research (a term of art that has, perhaps, a more narrow meaning than the one normally used in every day life). In Wikipedia, it is OK for the sources to disagree with one another, and it is NOT OK for us as editors to try to force a "consistent perspective" of Lerner into the article. Famspear (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's part of the rule in Wikipedia:

A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV [point of view] as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view.......

(bolding added).

Essentially, an attempt to force what you call a "consistent perspective" of Lois Lerner into the article would be an attempt to have Wikipedia itself take sides -- to have Wikipedia accept one view of her and reject an opposing view. Imagine the thought process:

"Yes, she was political. No, wait, she was apolitical. Oh, goodness! We have to resolve this blatant inconsistency! OK, let's take a stand! It's going to be one way or the other, and not both!"

That approach to editing the article would be a violation of the Wikipedia concept of Neutral Point of View. We're not here to resolve the inconsistent perspectives on Lois Lerner. Famspear (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Getting back to your objection: that the "article that has singled out these views about her. To place them right next to her declared political affiliation just seems a blatantly inconsistent perspective on her." The point is that even if you are correct that this is a blatantly inconsistent perspective, you are not making a valid objection. It's OK to have inconsistent perspectives in the article. In fact, trying to reduce or eliminate such inconsistency would violate the rule on Neutral Point of View as well as the rule on No Original Research. Famspear (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Court settlement , Lois Lerner was thrown under the bus by the IRS

On Wed., Oct. 25, 2017 the IRS admitted that it targeted Tea Party groups and paid a $3.5 million settlement. Lois Lerner was thrown under the bus by the IRS.Phmoreno (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear Phmoreno: Regarding "throwing" someone under a "bus," you might be reading too much into these reports. Neither Lois Lerner nor anyone else (as far as I know) was ever charged with any criminal violation. And, the only thing the IRS admitted about Lois Lerner -- at least, in the Linchpins of Liberty litigation settled on October 27, 2017 -- was that Lerner "failed to adequately manage the EO Division employees" and "failed to inform upper level IRS management of the serious delays in processing applications", etc. I haven't yet had a chance to check the other litigation (NorCal Tea Party) that was reportedly settled this week.

The two cases reportedly settled, or being settled, are Linchpins of Liberty v. United States, no. 13-cv-00777, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and NorCal Tea Party Patriots v. Internal Revenue Service, no. 13-cv-00341, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

I have not yet located the official Court reference to any 3.5 million dollar settlement. It is possible -- but unlikely -- that the settlement has already been paid, since the Court order (at least in the Linchpin case) was issued on Friday, October 27. But, as far as I see, neither the Court order nor the official settlement in Linchpin mentions any dollar amount of settlement. When you see a report that a Court "awarded" a settlement, what that often means is that the Court awarded a JUDGMENT for the settlement. The Court itself doesn't usually have the actual money. The Department of the Treasury in this case would have the money, and the Court order would often say that the settlement must be paid by a certain date.

Hopefully, more details will come out soon. Famspear (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

References