Talk:Muriel Bowser

Extremely biased?

The "Mayor of the District of Columbia" section is all negative, I can't imagine she did nothing positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.42.110 (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

-She was kind enough to visit Seth Rich at the hospital the night he died (wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Murder_of_Seth_Rich), along with Donna Brazile. 192.40.24.4 (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Shandafurdie

The beginning of this narrative states that she was the eighth mayor since 2015; it makes DC seem chaotic (which may be true) but she was re elected, and that’s only 4 years! We haven’t had 8 mayors in 4 years so I think this article is dangerously inaccurate. Carmenelise1 (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

A very oppositional entry

All of the entries paint a very negative character. Definitely a polarized entry, and is an unfair and biased sliver of the work she's done in D.C. She's a great mayor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.140.146.154 (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Achievements on the Council

She was on the Council for 7 years - what did she do there?

Slanted

I have no opinion on Bowser one way or the other, but it's clear to anyone that this page is laughably slanted. Someone clearly picked every bad thing that happened under her tenure and made a section about it. This needs an objective rewrite.

This is clearly derisive.

All of the information listed in the "Mayor of the District of Columbia" section is clearly included to sway the reader against Bowser. In my research, her terms have seen an overall crime reduction and economic growth, and she holds an approval rate of over 65%. I hope to contribute some of her accomplishments to the article and invite others to do the same. If you have any information that could lead me towards a more even understanding of Bowser's service, your contribution would be much appreciated.

Katherinejeanes (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Here are some articles you can use -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-council-report-bowser-administration-favored-top-donor-in-contracting/2017/06/14/5799a712-5134-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html?utm_term=.c80e4e07bcbb https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/bowser-says-she-will-not-investigate-evidence-of-illegal-leak-in-contracting-process/2017/06/15/41ee2b56-51f5-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html?utm_term=.65b061147f46 https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/this-is-not-a-war-on-pets-dc-mayor-backs-off-proposed-chicken-ban/2017/05/11/390fc6f2-3684-11e7-b412-62beef8121f7_story.html?utm_term=.1a463db9cfab Bangabandhu (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the foregoing (apparently facetious) list, here are a few other possibilities. As I noted below, the article is rich with criticisms of Bowser and examples of her missteps and weak judgment, but poor in descriptions of what her political positions are and actions she has taken to advance them. I've added several sections to the article in recent days, and some of these may be candidates too. I may get around to them myself, but in case not, I list them here.

Initiative 71 (marijuana) - there was a bit of fuss about this when a Congressman warned District officials about potential jail time if the law went into effect as planned. Bowser was the addressee of a letter from the Congressman, and was prominently mentioned in local and national reporting of the rhetorical exchanges.

Letter to Bowser

Feb 24, 2015, Post article

Feb. 25, 2015, Washingtonian

Feb. 25, 2015, Mother Jones

Feb. 26, 2015 WTOP - recounting Bowser appearance on Rachel Maddow

Feb 25, 2015, USA Today

"Girls of color initiative" - Currently the only thing that the "Education" section reports is how school chancellors have been handing out plum assignments to well-placed parents. This could be added. March 30, 2017 Afro article

Children - A couple things lumped together here - a child care initiative, and another designed to help find missing children, especially teens of color. Maybe they could be put into separate categories, or lumped under some other heading, I don't know.

March 27, 2017 HuffPost article on missing children

March 4, 2017 Mayoral press release re same (primary source, may be useful for details

May 3, 2017, WJLA article on child care

Statehood - She supports it. April 15, 2016, DCist

Technology - Here are some tech-friendly announcements, described in the headline as "major", prior to SXSW in 2016. There may be other similar articles over the years, and if so perhaps could be folded into, e.g., the existing "Autonomous Vehicles" section. March 11, 2015 Technical.ly

Affordable housing - It took her almost 3 years, but Bowser implemented regulations that had languished for almost a decade under other mayors. They relate to the purchase by the District of affordable housing projects to prevent their removal from the market. There were other sources but tended to be bloggy - I didn't look very hard past these.

Dec. 2,2017, City Paper

Mayoral press release March 13, 2018

These are just some things that came up when I set out to figure out where Bowser stands on a variety of current issues and what actions she'd taken as Mayor in those areas. I didn't perform exhaustive searches on any of them so there may be - probably are? - additional sources for any of them in case one or two sources feels a bit thin. JohnInDC (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

"Homelessness"

I think the first part of the section doesn't fairly capture what the source is reporting. The article notes that homeless families under shelter has skyrocketed but also that the administration - as part of the Mayor's pledge to end chronic homelessness - was aggressively placing families in shelters before it was required to do so by law. With passages like this - "How the city manages the inevitable — and perhaps record-setting — winter influx marks the first in a series of new tests for Bowser (D), who has promised to end chronic family homelessness in the nation’s capital within two years and to end all chronic homelessness in the District within five years." - the tenor of the Post article is not, as currently presented, "Bowser pledged to curb homelessness but what a mess she's made of it" but rather, "this is one way she's going about it - and it remains to be seen how well this works". To be sure, the article includes some skeptical & critical commentary, but it doesn't reach any conclusions. I intend to tweak this a bit more, but rather than try to convey this in edit summaries I figured it'd be better to lay it out here. JohnInDC (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

While I appreciate the nuance you're trying to bring to this, its not an article about Homelessness in DC. I'd encourage you to start that and I'd be interested to contribute to it. You could go on about the differences in hotel vs. shelter placements, how to move homeless to transitional housing, recent policy, the failure in Bowser's rapid rehousing program. But this para specifically on Bowser's performance on this issue and not the place for a lengthy, drawn out discussion. The sources are sound and the numbers are accurate. We don't need to capture the "tenor" of sources, just their factual content. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this article is not the place for an extended treatise on the subject, but if we’re going to include discussion of it here at all, then it needs to reflect the sources fairly and accurately. For example, as drafted, the text reported a 250% increase in “homelessness”, when in fact the increase was in homeless people being sheltered - in some ways the exact opposite. I do not dispute that the sources are sound, and the numbers accurate; but the words being used to characterize the sources are not. That’s what I intend to fix. JohnInDC (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I've come across three articles reflecting substantial drops in DC homeless population over the past two years. I'll be adding those, along with appropriate accompanying text, to this section. JohnInDC (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean to edit over you. What happened in other jurisdictions is irrelevant. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't really care about figures in neighboring areas. I added them because the District drops were pretty impressive, and it tempered the news somehow to see that similar figures were all over the place in the region. If you want them out, fine. Otherwise, I've again reverted your change about homeless figures "higher than at the beginning of Bowser's term" - you keep citing to a 2017 source, which reflected only one year of decline. The 2018 material, which I've cited, reflects 2 years of decline, shows a lower total number still, and expressly says that they're the lowest since 2013. JohnInDC (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

And that "expletive" that she directed at Mendelson? That's silly. A flash of anger. I don't care that it was reported in an RS. It's trivial, gossipy, and honestly looks like it has been inserted just to make her look petty and stupid. I intend to take it out - the same way that we took out a similarly sourced and reported episode re Jack Evans a couple of years ago. JohnInDC (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

No its not silly. Its representative of her personality and entirely noteworthy. The glaring mistake that you made on Jack Evan's page is irrelevant, see WP:OSE if you must. Anyway that exchange was Councilmember to journo, this is Mayor to Chairman of the Council. It stays, I am adding cite to show how it was widely reported across almost all DC media. You can put in something like "When they don't get their way and get angry, some people react with profanity" as is your wont for context. I'm kidding, please don't add that. Bangabandhu (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Really. It represents her personality? Because she's known for this? Because she's got a wild temper, and routinely lashes out at her opponents with profanity when she's frustrated? That might make this "representative", but if you're going to make that claim, you need more examples than one; and I'd say in the absence of them, it makes this episode precisely non-representative of her personality. It's a one-off, meaningingless, and for that reason, not worthy of inclusion. Even if two sources reported the event. Once again Bang, we edit, not parrot. Just because it's reported doesn't mean it merits mention. Sooner or later another editor will happen upon this exchange, and agree with me - as they did at Jack Evans - and then we'll take it out. I can wait until then.JohnInDC (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Except its not an isolated incident, what would make you think that it is? Do you want to further explain her temperament which "can be brusque, dismissive and short-tempered? Anyway, its fine as it is, but I'm amazed that you would think that just because there is only one example mentioned that it is somehow misrepresentative, or, worse, should be removed.Bangabandhu (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Huh. I read the rest of that paragraph you cite, which described both Bowser and Catania as occasionally brusque, dismissive and short-tempered: "But Bowser can flash a broad smile and exude enough charm to make her the more inviting candidate. Catania could never pull off nice." Sounds like Catania is the abrasive one. JohnInDC (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

POV / neutrality

The impression one takes from the section on Bowser's mayoralty is that hers is an entirely corrupt, feckless and secretive administration. Every single one of the 15 items listed there describes a failure, disappointment, embarrassment or other deficiency by or of Bowser and / or her administration. (Actually the very last item is now more neutrally stated but only because I fixed it.) There does seem to be no shortage of donor favoritism, ineptitude and bad judgment during her tenure, but even assuming the article text accurately and fully reflects the cited sources, it seems - well, unlikely that the administration has been the unmitigated failure that is portrayed here. So I intend to do a couple of things. One is to try to find some equally well-sourced examples of things that the mayor hasn't screwed up (like, I don't know, gun control advocacy) and add them, along with the refs, to the article text. The other is to lay the current article text up against the sources to see how well they track one another. I've identified a couple of instances in which they didn't really align, and there may be others.

In the end perhaps this exercise will simply confirm that, in fact, her failures and missteps far outweigh her successes and sound judgment and that the negative portrayal is accurate. If so - well, then the text will reflect it. I don't have any view on it one way or the other and don't really care how Bowser comes out smelling at the end. I'll be sure to explain any edits in summaries, or here on the Talk page if it needs to be more involved than that. JohnInDC (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I support a balanced article, but you can't change the reality of her administration, which you've accurately characterized above. Actually, I think the article as it stands right now currently omits some missteps.Bangabandhu (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure it does. I'm equally - and increasingly - confident that it omits matters where she hasn't manifestly failed. So let's keep working on the article to ensure that it adheres to the NPOV policies, and is appropriately balanced. JohnInDC (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I revised the "Education" section. Specifically I conformed it to the cited sources, which identified the school chancellor as the miscreant, not the Bowser appointees. One source expressly states, "Investigators were focused on Henderson and did not address whether the public officials she helped had abused their positions". I also added that several other parents, not Bowser appointees, also benefitted from the chancellor's abuse of authority. JohnInDC (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I do think that, given the problems with text and sources identified so far, it will be helpful to ensure that as we go forward, edits track the sources, and that we don't try to ask them to carry more weight than they're able. For example, Kaya Henderson was appointed Chancellor in 2010 (permanently in 2011, by Vincent Gray), long before Bowser took office. She is not a Bowser appointee. It is inaccurate, and not set forth in the sources, to say that "Bowser appointees routinely broke rules" in student enrollment. Bowser's appointee did break the same rule himself, but the source only reports a single instance - for his own kids - and that's not "routine". Let's be careful please. JohnInDC (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to keep coming back to this, but we need to ensure that the text we add actually reflects what the sources say. Do not create narratives that depart from the sources. In the school assignment matter, the sources lay blame at upon the school chancellor. Not upon the parents. I'll repeat: "Investigators were focused on Henderson and did not address whether the public officials she helped had abused their positions". This edit again repeats the incorrect claim that the parents were found to have abused their positions of authority, when in fact no such finding is contained within the sources on hand. This is not a new observation on my part and I shouldn't have to keep correcting this misstatement. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I keep coming across text / cite mismatches - the article seems to be littered with them. Although my plan is to go through the article methodically and check them all, I thought a tag was appropriate in the meantime. JohnInDC (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

"Government transparency" - I expanded it a bit to identify the specific entity responsible for the non-renewal of Hughes contract. I also hewed it a little more closely to the sources, which did not, as the text had previously stated, specifically connect any one or two of her actions to her dismissal. It was the lot of them. I also added her comments about being pressured. Finally, I removed altogether the part about hospital spending huge amounts on Bowser-affiliated consultants - the "dismissal" sources didn't mention that connection, and any such association that relies on an earlier, separate source, is Synthesis. JohnInDC (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

"Youth services". As previously written, this section implied that the failure was due to an inept Bowser board not having a clue about what was happening at the agency. The Post article and other sources, however (with phrases like "long-troubled" and "plagued by scandal") all noted the agency's longstanding problems and mismanagement, which stretched back a decade or more before its closing, and seemed to lay blame on a variety of causes. I added a couple of refs and reorganized the section chronologically to reflect its history. JohnInDC (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Many of the "cite mismatches" are ones that you're putting in there. See how Lopez is described as a field director in the source but you put him as a chief campaign aide and then for some reason need to redundantly state that there were three objection. Just because the article, as it was written, doesn't include excessive quotes, as you are inclined to include, doesn't mean that it is not accurately reflecting cites. Bangabandhu (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is the quote from the source re the Council vote. I'm restoring it. Again, if you want to talk about "Council objections" to his appointment, you need to talk about Council approval of it too: "Unlike many mayoral appointments, Lopez’s came with a dose of political drama and a gossipy backstory couched in Council procedure. And while the vote to approve his nomination passed 10–3, that count mapped onto longtime frictions between Bowser and some of her biggest critics." JohnInDC (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Also this is how the second line of that source describes him: "A former candidate for an at-large seat on the D.C. Council and chief campaign aide for both Bowser and her mentor, ex-Mayor Adrian Fenty...". What's wrong with that? JohnInDC (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

To save you the trouble of finding it, here's the link to the source that's cited. It contains the two phrases I've just quoted. It's sourced, and relevant. Don't remove it again. https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/loose-lips/article/20993476/bowser-buddy-joshua-lopez-finally-gets-a-seat-on-a-highstakes-dc-board JohnInDC (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I think too, you may misunderstand the term "field director". It's not a director of a field office, but the director of operations in the field. It's a high position, not a low position, perfectly consistent with "chief campaign aide". I think the first term used in the source is the better one to use, and that our use should track the source (which mine does and yours doesn't) but if you'd like to substitute "field director" for both Bowser and Fenty, please go ahead. JohnInDC (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you put the tag on there to refer to your own edits? What is this? How can you include unsourced, random quotations and then blame the article for not representing cites. Unbelievable.Bangabandhu (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

This complaint mystifies me. I cited this source - https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/bowser--proud-dc-mayor-who-hates-guns--champions-march-for-our-lives/2018/03/23/efbe4844-2e0c-11e8-8688-e053ba58f1e4_story.html?utm_term=.d81619df75d1 - for this sentence: "Bowser was also 'unusually supportive' of the March for Our Lives rally in Washington, D.C. in March 2018, and has been described as an emerging national figure in the gun control movement." The source says within it: "She has been unusually supportive of the march, taking every opportunity to promote it in ways that she hasn’t for other large-scale demonstrations that are routine in the nation’s capital", and "she has emerged as one of the biggest cheerleaders for Saturday’s march and has positioned herself as a national figure in the movement.". It's in the article headline: "Bowser — the ‘mayor who hates guns’ — champions March for Our Lives and steps into national spotlight". How can you claim that it's "unsourced"? It's what the source says. JohnInDC (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

How about this as a compromise and even closer match: "Bowser was also 'unusually supportive' of the March for Our Lives rally in Washington, D.C. in March 2018, and appears to be positioning herself as a national figure in the gun control movement." Now the correspondence is almost 1:1. And as far as it being a "random quote" - well, goodness again - it's the headline. JohnInDC (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't see that cite, it didn't follow the text. Regardless, we're not in the practice of cherry picking random text from WP headline writers to fulfill your very unique need for context. If you want to add to this section stick to the facts and put in something about whether or not the bump stock legislation went forward. Otherwise, its fine as is.Bangabandhu (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

A central point of the article (hence the headline) was that Bowser is taking an aggressive, nationally visible stand on gun control and that she has been significantly raising her profile locally and beyond. It's not "cherry picking" and it's not "random text" when the article is cluttered with phrases that all make the very same point:

"She has emerged as one of the biggest cheerleaders for Saturday’s march and has positioned herself as a national figure in the movement." (This is in the lead paragraph.)

"March for Our Lives presents an opportunity for Bowser ... to build her image with the country...."

"Some of her actions are aimed at an audience beyond Washington’s borders. Bowser co-starred with Justin Timberlake in an Instagram video to promote the march.... She wrote an op-ed in the Miami Herald and released a video slamming Sen. Marco Rubio as hypocritical...."

"Increasingly, she also has been using a national, not local, frame to discuss gun control."

"National gun control groups see the urban mayor as a valuable ally."

"'What you have is a mayor who is taking advantage of the national spotlight. She’s playing to the cameras,' said ... an organizer for the local Black Lives Matter branch...."

In my edit, I employed one phrase taken directly from the source ("unusually supportive"), which is supported by other text in the article; and I condensed seven separate mentions of the same notion of national exposure - including the headline and the lead paragraph - into a single short phrase which I'm willing to adjust to reflect her "positioning" rather than "status". There is absolutely nothing improper, undue or POV about any of this. It's what the source says, repeatedly. I'm adding back in the text, amended as I offered, with the ref following. JohnInDC (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

On the fly I adjusted it to, "is said to be positioning herself" rather than "appears to be" because the former seemed to me to more accurately reflect the source, but I am indifferent between the two if you disagree and want to change it. I'm happy to add bump stock stuff too but not in this instant. JohnInDC (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

It's horrible. It means nothing and adds nothing. "Unusually supportive" was a crappy headline and you're parroting it for no reason other than that its there. What does it mean to you? That she was willing to support it while there was no (immediately evident) benefit to her or donors? Or that she took a principled stand, totally out of character? 14:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I am including it because it's part and parcel of the larger point of the article - abundantly supported above - that she's making a push for greater exposure on this issue. Here are the relevant quotes:

"She has emerged as one of the biggest cheerleaders for Saturday’s march and has positioned herself as a national figure in the movement."

"She has been unusually supportive of the march, taking every opportunity to promote it in ways that she hasn’t for other large-scale demonstrations that are routine in the nation’s capital."

"For the first time during Bowser’s administration, the mayor’s office is recruiting volunteers to help march participants navigate the city. And she has appeared at events related to gun control every day this week — sometimes multiple events in one day — except for a snowy Wednesday."

If you honestly think after all that that the one phrase is another example of "cherry picking" or somehow overstates or misstates the article, take it out. But its pertinence and sourcing seem pretty darn clear to me. JohnInDC (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not worth arguing with you over this point considering the many other more pressing issues you've entered in this article. Suffice to say that any reader would want to know what she had done rather than find a confusing turn of phrase picked from the article. The point about her recruiting local volunteers is far more helpful. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

If the gripe is that the phrase could be more enlightening, I can easily amplify or rephrase it. But you've been removing it altogether, saying it's cherry picking, and unsourced, and - I guess, that somehow it doesn't tie back to her donors and has no place here. I'll see about improving it along the lines of what you've now suggested. JohnInDC (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

After a moment's reflection, I would add that this most recent comment of yours pretty neatly captures my concern about the article as a whole: "What does it mean to you? That she was willing to support it while there was no (immediately evident) benefit to her or donors? Or that she took a principled stand, totally out of character?" That is a plain statement of your personal POV on this mayor - that she's completely unprincipled and utterly in the thrall of her campaign contributors; and to boot you are criticizing me because I don't appear to agree! There has of course been abundant coverage of her more unsound appointments, and misdeeds they've committed in office; and how Bowser's donors seem to fare pretty well under her administration; and that reporting seems to be scrupulously reflected in this article. But your broader POV, your ultimate conclusion about this mayor and her tenure, is not one that is widely and routinely expressed in reliable sources about her. While many sources criticize her, most cover her as simply the mayor of a large and important city in the country. I am concerned that you routinely, indeed invariably, edit the article through the prism of your POV with the result that - as I noted at the top of this entry, when I arrived at this article, all 15 entries on her mayoralty portrayed Bowser or her appointees in a negative light. And not one even bothered to recount the routine coverage of her tenure to set forth her position - stated or manifested - on any issue affecting the District of Columbia. I have made a lot of changes to this article to try and bring a bit more evenhandedness to it but I remain deeply concerned about its general tenor and failure to meet Wikipedia's NPOV policies. JohnInDC (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem isn't this entry, it's that your impression of what's normal is basically determined by entries that were written by the subject's supporters or, in the case of Jack Evans, the subject themselves. Suddenly you see a page that's not whitewashed and you think its POV. Specifically WRT the point about her gun control, there are dozens of ways to make that sentence more meaningful than the way you wrote it. For example, "Compared to other marches in DC Bowser gave more support, even using her office to recruit volunteers for participation." That's among many other ways than a random quote from the article, regardless of whether you see it as representative. Bangabandhu (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

My "impression of what is normal" comes from the routine reporting from reliable sources on the mayor and her quotidian activities, which does not universally or even predominantly characterize her as terminally corrupt & unprincipled, entirely in the pocket of her donors, or uniquely inept among District mayors. As for this article, the simple fact that the section on her mayoralty was 100% negative - without a single neutral statement of her policy position on any issue - is all I need to see about the POV problems here. (And that's before we get to the pervasive problem of material misstatements of the sources.) Let's see what other folks say. JohnInDC (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Please don't add allegations of misconduct by former government officials, when the relevant investigation cleared them of those very allegations. It's tangential, and highly questionable from both POV and BLP standpoints. JohnInDC (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Then don't claim that something is an "allegation" when in fact it is a finding, and well documented in the source. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

"Transportation" / streetcar

The article text recited that Bowser had promised in her March 2015 State of the District speech, that the H Street streetcar would be up and running by the end of that year; and, that in fact it didn't begin operation until the end of February 2016. I reviewed the cited sources, and one or two others, for Bowser's "end of year" promise, but didn't find it. I even went to the actual speech to see if I was just overlooking something, but it's not there either. She did say - as the sources report - that she would get it "up and running" but didn't put a deadline on it. One cited source did reference "statements from District Department of Transportation Director Leif Dormsjo in September that streetcar service would begin by the end of the year", and I've revised the text to reflect the sources. JohnInDC (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow that's a lot of searching! You're right that its not in those sources, but pretty prominently reported. 13:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, finding the right refs does seem to present a challenge sometimes. JohnInDC (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

"Health Care"

I revised a new paragraph on "Health care" to reflect the sourcing more accurately. The original version omitted that the DC Council - not the Mayor - had been responsible for installing (and later removing - by a narrow vote) Veritas. The original indicated that Mayor Bowser personally had refused repeated requests for information about certain medical lapses, and cited a source that did not mention this. When I identified the source, here, it did not describe refusals by the Mayor herself, but rather by "officials in her administration" and her appointee, the health department director. I also removed the references Bowser campaign contributions by the spouse of the Veritas CEO in the absence of sourcing that ties that fact to the firm's appointment by - not the Mayor, but the Council. Without an RS making that connection, it's innuendo and speculation. JohnInDC (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Re: "The original version omitted that the DC Council - not the Mayor - had been responsible for installing (and later removing - by a narrow vote) Veritas." This context isn't necessary and really isn't relevant, as the Council approves every significant contract and appointee. As is your unfortunate tendency, you're adding undue weight and losing readability in an attempt to make it sound NPOV. There's lots of people involved in a contract award and experts who weigh in on both sides. The fact of the matter is that it was a no bid contract (widely sourced and cited) to a major campaign donor.

Re: "Officials in Mayor Muriel E. Bowser’s administration" - Yes it should be revised to say people in her administration. That's a good edit. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please track the sources. The sources nowhere say that Bowser appointed Veritas. They say that the Council did. They are explicit on this point. ("At the advice of Director of Health Care Finance Wayne Turnage, the D.C. Council awarded a no-bid contract to Veritas to run the hospital.") The sources don't characterize the firm as "politically connected", or the principal of Veritas as a "donor and friend" - those are your synthesis and spin. And your synthesis is wrong to boot, inasmuch as the sources make clear that it is the spouse of the Veritas CEO, not the CEO herself, who was the donor and - possibly (but thus far unsourced) "friend". ("The CEO is Chrystie Boucree, whose husband is Corbett Price, a Metro board member appointed by Mayor Muriel Bowser and a major donor to her mayoral campaign."; "Veritas is owned by Chrystie Boucrée, wife of Corbett Price, whom Bowser appointed in 2015 to the board of the Metro transportation system. Price, his relatives and his companies made more than $35,000 in political donations to Bowser in 2014, campaign-finance records show.") The fee wasn't $800,000 per month, but $300,000. ("... which has managed United Medical Center for a fee of $300,000 per month since 2016".) I also restored the part about the council terminating the contract - why would you omit that? It's what happened, it's what the sources say, and without it you leave the impression that Veritas is still in place. ("The D.C. Council narrowly voted to oust Veritas."; "The council must decide in the coming weeks whether to renew the contract."; "On Nov. 7, the D.C. Council voted not to renew Veritas’ contract.") I've corrected these errors, and tried to leave in your other, properly sourced, language. JohnInDC (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

My edit didn't say anything about a Veritas appointment by Bowser. I wrote: "...management of the sole government-owned hospital in DC, United Medical Center, was awarded in a no-bid contract to Veritas". Actually the language might mimic the source too closely as to trigger copyvio:"Veritas was awarded a no-bid contract to turn around UMC in the spring of 2016. The company is owned by Chrystie Boucree, whose husband, Price, is a longtime health-care executive who had previously overseen troubled hospitals in New York and Maryland. Price, his relatives and affiliated companies made more than $35,000 in political donations to Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) in 2014."

You somehow write that The sources don't characterize the firm as "politically connected" and have the gumption to say its my "spin" but "politically connected" is exactly the term the WP uses to describe Veritas: "...$4.2 million contract for Veritas of Washington, a politically connected consulting firm."

I don't know why you think that the Council's termination of the contract is important. You can add similar language to basically every one of her initiatives as the Council approves contracts larger than $1,000,000 - but we don't because readability and succinctness is important. This is an entry about Bowser and her affiliates. Bangabandhu (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

By all means, if you have a source to back up your language, then add the source and revise the language. (I've done this now.) Meantime don't complain to me for not knowing what uncited sources you have in mind when you write what you write. Otherwise - the sources say the Council appointed the firm. Why say anything different, why use the awkward passive voice to suggest there was no actor, or that it's somehow vague, when we actually have an actor, cited by the sources? Separately, you impute Price's donations to Boucree but would describe Veritas as having "limited health care experience" despite Price's sourced experience in turning around troubled hospitals - if you're doing to ding her for her husband's donations, how about crediting her with his "longtime" experience? I didn't see any of the sources describe the firm's experience as "limited" - if so then I retract my comment but meantime I wonder why it's not a two-way street. Finally, again, why leave the impression that the firm is still in place? The Council terminated them. They're gone now. Let's finish the story we start. JohnInDC (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I added the husband's longtime experience as a hospital exec, as both properly sourced and relevant. JohnInDC (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It's Bowser's entry. There's another entry about UMC, which is linked from the Bowser entry. If readers want to know about the ultimate disposition of the medical facility or more background about its leadership, they can click through to there. But there's no reason to have it so overly detailed on Bowser's page. Similarly, we don't need all the detail about Turnage - we don't include what pundits/experts/officials think about any of the other topics covered here. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no trouble with your most recent edits. JohnInDC (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Has anything been done to improve the neutrality?

Reading through the article in 2022, it still seems like the tone of the anecdotes and facts is negative, and while I have neither a dog in this fight or advanced knowledge of DC, it seems like cleaning up the tone to be more neutral is still in order. Looking at the history of the article, most of the negative and seemingly extraneous pieces of information that, in particular, stuck out to me have been added by a user who is a DC resident and may have some inevitable bias. While sourced, these edits seem to push the boundaries of editorializing. Some of these edits present two pieces of information about something Bowser has said or done that together make her seem hypocritical, corrupt, incompetent, or foolish, while others exhaustively list all criticism Bowswer has received. Many push the idea that Bowswer is in the pocket of developers who donated to her campaign, a topic which may merit a section, but probably shouldn't be reiterated the way it is throughout the article. Also has anyone made Mario aware that Bowswer is the mayor of Washington DC?

Sincerely, IP Jones 74.215.142.74 (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like we have vastly different perceptions of the article. Seems to go some length to highlight her accomplishments. Everything discussed during her time as Mayor is well sourced and relevant. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You're being willfully obtuse about all this. Yes, the sources are cited, this is true - that doesn't mean the article isn't being edited with the clear purpose of telling a certain narrative. This is not The Case Against Muriel Bowser, and we are not prosecutors. People who go onto her Wikipedia page aren't looking for an itemized list of her every shortcoming, they're looking for a concise, neutral summary of her tenure as well as her political positions. This isn't that. 67.83.2.154 (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you would assume good faith rather than mischaracterizing my attitude. If you think content is overemphasized or missing, you're welcome to make those changes or discuss here. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Clear Negative Bias

While there are cited sources, this article was clearly written to depict this mayor in a negative light. It makes this wikipedia page untrustworthy due to its lack of neutrality. 2600:4040:295C:2500:652E:A9EA:F321:BD77 (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)