I watched part of her speech on YouTube today. It's hard to conclude what she really believes from the public speaking event she was given that day in June 2009 to an audience of youngsters inside what looks to be a Catholic Church or Episcopal Church (excuse my spelling). The main point is, her own personal life doesn't jell with Mao's philosophy; for example, under Mao, Ms. Dunn would never have been permitted to decide on her own career of choice. Secondly, because she is so free spirited, she too (along with just about everyone in Washington D.C.) would have been on Mao's list of dissidents during the cultural revolution which "changed everything" including its written Chinese language (sounds familiar folks: changing "laws and times"); and thirdly, only the children of some high government officials within Mao's organization would have been permitted to leave China for an education abroad (and so on and so on). Maybe Ms. Dunn meant that the two figures are so polar opposites, the idea of two extremes fascinate her. Do any of you anonymous contributors know Ms. Dunn well enough to know what it is she was talking about here? I for one, couldn't tell exactly what or who she was leaning towards. God, it's great to be a free American. I never could understand why anyone would want to "change" that.
Ronewirl (
talk)
06:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is why only information from reliable sources is acceptable. I think we should have a link to the video, but certainly shouldn't include our musings, her musings, or the musings of those acquainted with her. Her essence remains a mystery, at least to all but Glenn Beck.
Fred
Talk
12:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's completely non-notable to the biography article and gives
undue weight to what is essentially an editorial rant. It would need a lot more coverage (in third-party reliable sources) to be even considered for inclusion. Also, it was not reliably sourced. --
Loonymonkey (
talk)
19:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why exactly do you believe that it is not notable to her article?
Trilemma (
talk)
21:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why do you believe it is? --
Loonymonkey (
talk)
21:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- It has gained attention from RS sources and proved to be big enough that the White House has gone on the defense over it.
Trilemma (
talk)
21:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's
minor recentism. Nobody will remember or care about Glen Beck's attack du jour. Glen Beck attacks someone every day but it doesn't mean we rush to add it their biography. Also, as written, the passage is completely tendentious, taking the quote out of context and repeating Beck's accusation that she is a "Maoist." This is a clear violation of
WP:BLP. --
Loonymonkey (
talk)
21:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Loonymonkey, a lot of what you've said is your judgment against Glenn Beck. I'm sure this isn't your position, but it comes across as if you mean to say that anything Glenn Beck covers is not worth including because Glenn Beck covers it. The claim that this is minor recentism is rather tenuous considering that the White House is already on the defense over this.
Trilemma (
talk)
21:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- You're confusing Beck's notability with the notability of anything he says. Beck is notable. But every word he utters does not become notable to that person's biography. It has nothing to do with whether one agrees or not. If Rachel Maddow attacks Newt Gingrich, I would argue just as vehemently that it has nothing to do with his biography. And, as stated earlier, the passage as currently written is a clear non-NPOV violation of BLP. --
Loonymonkey (
talk)
21:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think it depends entirely what is being referenced. If it is a criticism that is groundless then of course. But here we have a White House official expressing admiration of Mao as a political philosopher. I think that is quite significant, and it is now developing RS coverage.
Trilemma (
talk)
22:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Loony, whether you like it or not, someone in the highest level of our government professing her adoption of a "What Would Mao Do" view of politics is pretty noteworthy. The fact that it is being virtually ignored by the majority of the media is irrelevant to its actual noteworthiness. It should be neutral, but it should be there.
65.60.160.214 (
talk)
21:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that it is "being virtually ignored by the media" is exactly why it is not notable. And as written, it violates both
WP:NPOV and
WP:BLP. --
Loonymonkey (
talk)
21:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- So, when did the media at large become the arbiters of what is notable and what is not? I know they think they are gods, but come on. Let's play a little reversal here. Let's say some prominent conservative had espoused admiration for the views of Ghandi, and Hitler. A majority of the media, of course, goes nuts reporting the story. Are you trying to tell me that, because of the coverage of the "Hitler" citation, that alone makes it "noteworthy?"
65.60.160.214 (
talk)
21:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Like him or not, Glen Beck is the most watched show in the US right now. I don't know how you can argue that this is not notable. It would although not be reliable if it was only Beck saying this or that, but the clip is a primary source. Cant get more reliable than that. It establshes that one of her two favourite political thinkers is Mao. It also indicates that she supports "to each his own means to reach his ends". But it does not necessarily support that she agrees with communism since she does not say it. That's as simple as that. --
Childhood's End (
talk)
22:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely, and any edit that would make some sort of allegation such as "Dunn stated her agreement with Chairman Mao" would be blatant NPOV. But that's not what my edit was. I referenced her original words, directly, and her rebuttal statement.
Trilemma (
talk)
22:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- "The most watched show in the US"? Uh, no. Not even close. Your argument isn't helped when you simply make things up. Beck is opinion and as such is only a reliable source for his own opinion. The issue is still notability. Just because Beck criticized her, doesn't make it part of her biography. --
Loonymonkey (
talk)
23:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please at least know what you're talking about before posting. And even if Beck is not the most watched show, it's still notable. You need to make the difference between notability and reliability. --
Childhood's End (
talk)
00:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I do know what I'm talking about, which is why I pointed out your error. Beck's show is not even in the top 25 of most watched shows. Heck, it's not even the most watched show on Fox News (that would be O'Reilly). As for notability, you seem to be confusing the notability of Beck himself with the notability of his statements. Beck is notable. That does not make everything he says notable to articles that are not about him.--
Loonymonkey (
talk)
00:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Glenn Beck DOES deserve credit for breaking the story, since the person who had the video clip had it specially delivered for Beck's show. I just thought it didn't need to have his name in the HEADING, since it fit under the white house position, and we don't need him any MORE prominent that it needs to be other than mentioning he DID have an important role, as in Van Jones and the ACORN scandal. Other conservative outlets carried it, liberal outlets complained about it, but Beck started it. Beck is a story himself, otherwise he woudn't have made the cover of Time, or be attacked as a threat to the American Way by liberals. WP should do something about this "unreliable source" nonsense. They got it on video for pete's sake unless somebody did it with a CG puppet, you can't get more reliable than that. If something has been an established fact, and not just made up, FOX should be good enough, and if you're just documenting opinion, then Glenn Beck's opinion IS a fact as long as it is a notable opinion, and having the 3rd highest rated radio an talk shows does make somebody noteable, even if it's Jimmy Carter stating that opposition to health care is because Americans don't like a black president. That's his opinion whether it can be proved or not, and the networks put him on TV. If Fox put Dunn on TV, it's just as reliable a source. Reliable doesn't mean it has to pass the NYT editorial board, but thats the definition a lot of people seem to be using.
Bachcell (
talk)
00:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am going to have to agree with those that don't think it really belongs. It would appear to be undue weight in its current state. I don't think it all compares to the Van Jones and ACORN situations.
Arzel (
talk)
00:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Other sourcing: Peter Wehner at
Commentary Magazine, Andrew McCarthy at
National Review Online. Beware, as usual, of giving
undue weight to one particular event in her life. Keep it in perspective with the rest of her life, in particular the other things for which Ms. Dunn may have received large amounts of media attention.
Ray
Talk
00:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Also found on
[1], which also suggests that it's been covered by The Daily Show, Rachel Maddow and Olbermann (which is not necessary for the sake of this discussion, but relevant) --
Childhood's End (
talk)
02:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- And England's Telegraph, a major newspaper there, is covering it too
[2] --
Childhood's End (
talk)
02:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Lew Rockwell's website is very much not an RS.
Trilemma (
talk)
02:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I would agree it is not if Media Matters was not used as such in this article, but starting from there, anything could be a RS... --
Childhood's End (
talk)
03:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Two points: There is an ongoing PR war between the Obama administration and the Fox News Channel and Anita Dunn is in the middle of that war, this quote is one battle in that war. We cannot and should not avoid that fact. Secondly, this page is about Anita Dunn, not that battle, so I agree with Hypercapitalist that if the details of this battle shed no insight into who Anita Dunn is, then it should not be included. But that is like trying to write a biography of a wartime general without going into the details of the battles in which that general fought. It can't be done. A description of the battles themselves give insight into the people involved. I have restored the original quote.
- I agree that the quotes _by Anita Dunn_ should be in the article, but I don't understand why where those quotes were played back matter about the topic of this article: Anita Dunn. Perhaps that material should be included on the pages about MediaMatters and/or Fox news, but it doesn't seem to add any value to understanding who Anita Dunn is. All it does is raise peoples hackles and introduces POV unnecessarily (from both sides). Having said my peace here, I won't revert though -- but I encourage someone else to.
HyperCapitalist (
talk)
17:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree it raises hackles, but so does a description of the battles Sherman or Lee during the Civil War/War of Northern Agression. If all it does is raise hackles, then I agree, dump it. But a bare quote without context is less informative to someone who is looking for information. Lets try to convey information and not worry about the hackles raised on the right or left, they aren't looking for information anyway. One thing that concerns me is that a simple mention of the quote and controversy favors the right. On the other hand, the quote about Fox News being an arm of the Republican party is without answer from the right, so on the whole, I think the section is balanced without being weightless.
PAR (
talk)
18:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't agree that simply mentioning the quote favors the right. She did say it. Now you could also put her response to criticism from the right -- again, material from the subject of the article. Fox News and MediaMatters are side shows to the subject of the article.
HyperCapitalist (
talk)
18:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
There are still three issues,
WP:RS,
WP:NOTABILITY and the
WP:BLP violation as it is currently written. The fact that this was mentioned in a couple of right-leaning editorials does not make it notable to the biography. As everyone acknowledges, this is simply not a news story and is not being reported. The notion that a quarter of her entire biography should be devoted to a non-notable attack by Glen Beck a few days ago is absurd.
Also, there aren't any reliable sources for any of this. Remember, opinion pieces are not reliable sources for anything but the opinion of their author (and Beck's show is simply one big opinion piece).
Finally there is
WP:BLP. To use language like "evidence of her having communist and pro-Mao sympathies" is a clear violation and must be removed immediately. --
Loonymonkey (
talk)
23:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Loony, I linked to a CNN article on the topic, which should address your RS concerns as well as the idea that this is 'not news.' I can understand the qualms about the way it is written but let's work out a better way of stating it. Here
[1] is another reference to the issue coming up/
Trilemma (
talk)
00:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I added back your CNN ref, added her response from that article and removed the more egregious
WP:BLP violations. Also, there was a bunch of unreferenced
WP:OR about where the original quote came from. I removed that. --
Loonymonkey (
talk)
00:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- London's Telegraph is doing the job that MS media in the US refuses to do. And The Telegraph is both notable and reliable as a source.
[3] --
Childhood's End (
talk)
00:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Again, that's an editorial. It's not a reliable source for anything other than the opinion of its author. --
Loonymonkey (
talk)
00:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Again, the point is not to demonstrate who is right or wrong. The point is to document that Anita Dunn said that Mao is one of her two favourite political philosophers. The clip is a primary source for this purpose so stop arguing. Beck + Telegraph and other coverage make it notable. --
Childhood's End (
talk)
05:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- The White House Communications Director saying Mao-tse tung and Mother Teresa are her favorite philosophers is notable. Her response to criticism is notable. What others say reagarding what she said is not notable in an article about Dunn but rather should be in their articles. I have editied accordingly. I think the resulting, brief mention is appropriate.
HyperCapitalist (
talk)
00:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just because you personally find it interesting, doesn't make it notable. Notability comes from reliable third-party sources, of which hardly any exist. The CNN ref is really the only one that's been found so far. --
Loonymonkey (
talk)
01:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong -- I'd be ok with it not being in the article, but I think you'd have a hard time saying it isn't notable to those who have the other opinion. There are other sources that have quoted her too. Limiting it to what she actually said seems to be a fair compromise don't you think?
HyperCapitalist (
talk)
01:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- In what way is Beck's accusation of "communist and pro-Mao sympathies" a violation of
WP:BLP? In what way is Dunn's empty insult of Beck informative? In what way is the quote controversial-it doesn't say. Where is Media Matters to-the-point refutation of the controversy - gone. Please check this article for balance. If the tables were turned and she were a right-wing communications director for Bush, would this article be entirely acceptable to you? Where is the link to the quote? This is a VITAL primary source, if the topic is going to be discussed. This article is now a laughable cheer for Dunn, and we (and she) deserve better. Is there anyone out there who wishes to convey information rather that carry the national political struggle to the pages of Wikipedia? Can I get some help here?
PAR (
talk)
01:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why not let the reader see that Dunn has said in her own words that she really likes Mao's philosophy? I think that is nuts, but I'm willing to trust that people can come to their own conclusions about that.
HyperCapitalist (
talk)
01:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- There is a link to the quote. Did you mean a different quote by Dunn?
HyperCapitalist (
talk)
01:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think her comment about irony is useful, because we can get that having your favorite philosophers be Mao and Theresa is ironic, but that in no way refutes that she was serious about it. In fact, if you listen to her speech she repeatedly brings Mao up and gives specific reasons for why she likes him so much, including his struggle to take over China, and his exact quote, you fight your war and I'll fight mine, which she tells the students to apply to their own lives. So, the irony part is not in any way her denying that Mao is one of her favorite philosophers it is just stating the obvious which she even says in the speech that is ~"might seem strange", etc.
71.245.236.40 (
talk)
06:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
- Remember Mao bragged about killing myriads of people, he said that between 1949 (when he took over and Dunn references)-1954 that he "liquidated", in his own words, 800.000 people. After that he went on to murder more people then Adolf Hitler, or Joseph Stalin. Dunn's speech was to high school students, and was in essence a sort of motivational speech. So, how can this not be noteworthy? Also, I'm not sure why Glenn Beck is mentioned, other people also criticized this, Beck would only be relevant if he broke the story, so I assume that's what the article meant to say.
71.245.236.40 (
talk)
06:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHIstory
I have reverted back to the previous balanced description, but including the irony and Atwater responses. This section has turned to crap. Describing what Beck accused her of is informative and not contrary to
WP:BLP, given her quote. Describing Media Matters refutation of Becks accusation is informative. Her ad-hominem insult of Beck's sense of irony is delightful, but not informative.
PAR (
talk)
13:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's not accurate in its current state, because it was never a "quote" that was at issue, it was the continual reference to Mao that were. Not just one quote, the speech was riddled with such references glorifying Mao, and everyone knows that ironic to compare with Teresa, but in no way means that it is not her belief. This was a motivational type of speech to high school kids. Additionally, right now it is a giant apology even including media matters which is biased. Let's just tell the reader what happened and let them decide, instead of a long excuse.
JohnHistory (
talk)
20:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
- In what sense is the paragraph not accurate? The statement that it was never the quote or the irony that was at issue would be an editorial opinion, and it should be left out unless somebody involved makes that point forcefully. As you say, give the quotes, let the reader decide. We color it enough by our choice of which quote to add and which to ignore. The paragraph is more or less balanced, I think. Dunn makes a speech, Beck attacks, Media Matters and Dunn defend. Ok, thats a little to the left, but the fact that its being discussed at all favors the right. I think its more or less balanced.
PAR (
talk)
21:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- My opinion: Dunn's quote is notable because Dunn said it. Beck's attack is notable because Dunn brought it up by responding to it. Media Matters' quote/material isn't notable here. Seems to be free of POV to me as we would then be using Dunn's own choice as to what she responds to as a filter. She is, after all, the subject of the article.
HyperCapitalist (
talk)
22:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree the media matters thing is totally irrelevant, and they are a biased source, what do they have to do with what Dunn said to high schoolers? I think we should just quote the speech if this continues, otherwise we are not presenting this is a neutral way. Also, you said having this even be discussed "favors"the right? I'm not sure what your logic is on that? This is relevant, and controversial so "favors" is not something that enters the issue, right? I mean, that can't be an excuse for making the text lean left. Furthermore, Media Matters, aside from it not being relevant, simply said that Dunn's speech doesn't mean she favors Mao's homicidal side, it doesn't refute that she repeatedly called him one of her two favorite philosophers, thus it's doubly irrelevant. Finally, the way it was presented makes it seem that Beck took issue with one quote, and not a series of Mao praising references, thus it misleads once again, and follows the Dunn line of obfuscation. Like I said, if this continues we should simply quote the speech (it's not terribly long) and or the Mao segments of it.
JohnHistory (
talk)
22:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
A little time still needs to go by. At this point we're still doing a news article. I think it probably is a significant event for both parties and for the network. This whole red-baiting business will probably come to a head soon, but even now it is obviously, to me at least, a significant event.
Fred
Talk
22:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I removed the final sentence as editorializing. It may be true, but we need Beck to say it, not us.
- As far as Media Matters is concerned, of course its biased, so is Fox, but I thought it was to the point, defending directly against the "Maoist sympathies" attack, rather than insulting Beck for lack of irony, or acting as if it was the quote that was the offensive thing by misdirecting to Atwater as Dunn did. If thats how she wants to defend, then fine, lets quote her. There were only two "praising references": that Mao was one of her favorite political philosophers, and was one of two people she turned to most to make a particular point. The rest was an interpretation of the quote, which is not necessarily praise of Mao. For example, one of Mao's quotes is "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". To explain this quote is to praise Mao? But George Washington said almost the same thing: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force". Some of Mao's insights are valuable. His use of those insights are detestable. Was she able to hold those two ideas in her mind at the same time? Yes, says Media Matters. Good defense. I think its a pile of crap because she is a seasoned political operative who smart enough to know that this defense would not work with anyone but the partisan left and brilliant intellectuals like us, and if she were really a Maoist, she is too smart to say anything about it at this point. I have no idea what she was thinking which is why this conflict is so interesting.
- As John History wrote "This is relevant, and controversial...(so)...that can't be an excuse for making the text lean left. Look, if the partisan left could have their way, this whole mess would disappear. Ask them if its relevant, the answer is no. The partisan right wants to wring it out for all its worth. Ask them if its relevant. The answer is yes. For someone to declare it relevant or irrelevant without some explanation makes me suspicious. We cannot just wave our hand and say "of course its relevant" because then someone from the partisan left shows up and says "oh, all it takes is a wave of the hand? Good, heres two." Give an objective explanation of its relevance, and then it won't be so easy for the partisans to win one for the Gipper or the Chairman.
PAR (
talk)
00:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- What I was actually saying (you didn't sign your post) was to the other commenter who defended the left leaning nature of the text, but then said it was okay because just mentioning it "favors the right", which I found to be a flawed argument. You can't say it's not relevant because it has been covered by various news agencies like Fox and CNN, and Dunn herself has directly addressed it, and saying Mao is one of somebody's favorite philosophers is also quite remarkable. Thus, that debate doesn't hold water. Secondly, comparing the entire network, and all shows and anchors on Fox with a huge audience to an organization like Media Matters is just not a good comparison. Media Matters has no reason to be in this article. They are only commentators on the issue pushing a clear cut POV, they did not break the story, and they are not Dunn. So, including them is just pushing a POV, and a well known and stated left wing group. That is just a irrelevant POV, plain and simple. On top of that, they are not refuting, nor for that matter is Dunn that her favorite political philosophers include Mao. They are not in anyway contradicting or refuting that. In terms of Dunn and what she would or would not admit, I think that is not for us to decipher. We can only report what she said, and what she said is remarkable. Also, we don't need Beck to say he didn't say something that he didn't say. It's enough that he didn't say (a single alleged quote of interest) what is alleged.
JohnHistory (
talk)
00:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
- Here's an AP story about all of this including Mao and Fox News "war". The second one is from Fox, but is made up of quotes from other new agency personalities, mainly CNN.
Given that admin appeals have been to these other news agencies to stop dealing with Fox, etc and that this is a "strategy" I think adding some of left and right criticism of this approach (last time it was tried was under Nixon) to a media outlet would be well worth it and within the relevant perimeters.
JohnHistory (
talk)
01:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
-
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5grZ9qgSRNN5sAMW8smsQXGMwrwzgD9BDR3SO0
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/18/white-house-escalates-war-fox-news-1925819282/
Here's the NY Times piece clearly criticizing the tactics and strategy of the White House "war on fox" and Anita Dunn specifically for being the chief communications person, and instigator of said strategy. I think with all of this the views should be included in the section on Dunn the Whitehouse, and Fox news. This is not partisan, and it's about said strategy by people who have even been asked to participate in it, and now they are giving their 2 cents.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/weekinreview/18davidcarr.html
JohnHistory (
talk)
03:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
- I would also point out, on the Mao thing, there is 0 evidence of any quote by Lee Atwater anywhere to back her up even partially (what difference would that make?), and Beck was not objecting to a quote, but her stating that one of her two favorite political philosophers is Mao, and just the act of referencing Mao's philosophy in general.
JohnHistory (
talk)
06:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
- Do you have a reliable source stating that Atwater never used the quote? --
Loonymonkey (
talk)
18:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't, as far as anyone can find, exist. I was asking if anyone could find it please.
- What you are asking for is
original research. That's not allowed on Wikipedia. We rely on
reliable sources to tell us these things. --
Loonymonkey (
talk)
00:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, whoever keeps deleting the full quote on Mao, please stop it. It's clearly being cropped to exclude her comments about Mao taking over China which is not accurately portraying her comments intent, context, and detail.
JohnHistory (
talk)
22:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
- Given that you yourself keep deleting the full quote of her response, it is difficult to believe that you are simply trying to provide "context and detail." What exactly does the full quote have to do with her biography? If anything, the response is far more relevant as that was what made the thing newsworthy (if, indeed it is). --
Loonymonkey (
talk)
00:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Also, just to be clear for others joining the discussion, you are also editing and commenting as the unregistered IP
71.245.236.40 , correct? --
Loonymonkey (
talk)
00:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Excuse me? I have deleted nothing about her response please don't accuse me of that, and no why would you say I have an additional unregistered account, if you want to start a thread accusing me of sock puppetry go right ahead. Here's the bottom line, stop deleting the quote, end of story. There is no rationale to delete it. You saying that the response is more relevant then the quote is very illogical. They are both relevant, not one or the other. Why would you keep deleting part of it?
JohnHistory (
talk)
00:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
- Yes, you have been deleting the quote. Have you even looked at the diff of your own revert? It's right there. Why you would feel that her response should be paraphrased, not quoted in full in a biography article about her is the nonsensical part. And I wasn't accusing you of sockpuppetry, just clarifying for those looking at the discussion or edit history. It's good to know when multiple editors are in fact the same person. It would not be sockpuppetry unless you were intentional deceptive about it (which, unless you are denying it, you have not been). --
Loonymonkey (
talk)
00:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, saying you think a response to a quote is more relevant then the quote, is nonsensical. They are both relevant, you can't have a response to something, and not show what it was.
JohnHistory (
talk)
00:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
- The part of her quote you wanted was earlier taken out, not by me, because it was deemed something or other (look above) but I don't object to it being included, as I have done, but I do strongly object to using only part of her speech's references to Mao, and leaving out the main part that she said about Mao, and then saying her response to the speech is more relevant then the speech. Again, adding only the more vague allusion to Mao, and then leaving out the explicit reference to Mao taking over China seems very hard to justify.
JohnHistory (
talk)
00:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
- And, again, I will state that I have signed all my posts, if I was logged out accidentally, it would still be signed "JohnHistory" at the end, but I don't think that was even the case. So, unless someone else wants to argue against her full response again I'm okay with it. I hope we have found a solution by including both quotes. Thanks.
JohnHistory (
talk)
01:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
- Actually, there are a number of arguments above signed with the IP address, not your name (and of course you made dozens of edits to actual article as the IP, not your signed-in name). That all I wanted to clarify, so it was clear that these were not the words (and edits) of multiple people. To be clear, I was not accusing you of sockpuppetry. --
Loonymonkey (
talk)
01:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Clearly you have no desire to be reasonable about this, even when her full response is quoted.
JohnHistory (
talk)
01:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
- Do you have a
reliable source for the extended quote? Perhaps I'm missing it, but it isn't in either of the reliable third-party references. The quote as I placed it in the article was the full quotation from the CNN article. Where did you get the other quote from? Also, you really need to preview your edits. You made a terrible mess of that paragraph, pasting the text back into the middle of itself, breaking a ref, and repeating the block of text. I'm not going to correct it, as I try to avoid even the appearance of an edit-war, but you should fix it. --
Loonymonkey (
talk)
01:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well if I "made a mess out of it" I apologize, but then why not just fix it instead of censoring her own quote. Clearly you have not looked at the source in that paragraph currently, which includes the very quote you keep deleting.
JohnHistory (
talk)
01:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
- Maybe there would be less messes if you stopped deleting the sources quote on her which is the exact topic that the paragraph is on, and saying that her response to her speech is more important then the subject of her speech. I tried to make a middle ground here, and you seem uninterested.
JohnHistory (
talk)
01:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
- I'm not sure what you're talking about as I haven't deleted the source quote. Most of the edit I made was restoring the response quote that you kept removing and removing the
WP:PEACOCK words in describing Beck. Let me clarify my question above, though. What you were adding was not the "full" quote as you keep saying, (the full quote is several paragraphs long). What you kept adding was a longer collection of some of the more inflammatory parts taken out of context and strung together with ellipses (or the phrase "she continued"). What I'm asking is, where did you get this from? Did you just pull those parts yourself from the full quote or is there a reliable source that boiled it down in that way? --
Loonymonkey (
talk)
01:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's not up to you to censor this. Why would you want to? I picked up the whole part dealing with the subject which is Mao. Thus, I added the full quote on said subject. If you really believe this then why not add the whole speech? The subject is Mao, thus I included a quote, remember you don't like to "paraphrase" and "inflammatory" stuff yet you want paraphrase Dunn speech, and then add her exact inflammatory quote about Beck. That doesn't make sense. Here's the bottom line, the subject is what she said about Mao, I included it fully. You just want the least "inflammatory" part. It is no way out of context, it's a whole section of dialogue that is proceeded by her setting up said section of dialogue. If you want to add even more go ahead, but don't censor this. I mean, you are using a double standard and it's not right for you to take out the relevant quote about Mao as that is the subject matter of the paragraph.
JohnHistory (
talk)
01:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
- You're dodging the issue. What you are adding is not the full quote (and why would we want to add the full quote, it's several paragraphs long). So it seems that the choice of which part of the quote to add is being made, not by a reliable source, but by you yourself. That's not how Wikipedia works. Also, you seem to think that I am the only editor that was reverting your edits. After another editor reverted you, your tone here with me got fairly angry and insulting. As I stated earlier, I don't edit-war so I haven't made any edits since early in this discussion. You might want to cool the edit-war yourself as you've already violated
WP:3RR today (three of those edits just in the last half hour). --
Loonymonkey (
talk)
01:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Clearly you had no interest in solving this, even when I agreed to include her inflammatory quote about Beck, you still have continued your edit war to remove her comments about Mao, and even made the argument her response to her speech is more relevant then her speech. I'm sorry, but you are vandalizing this.
JohnHistory (
talk)
01:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
- Hypercapitalist, you argued that this shouldn't even be in the article, it is, so if it's in then why not then show what she said about the subject in her own words? What she really said about Mao you have erased.
JohnHistory (
talk)
01:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
- I think this is really biased, and makes no sense. Show the full quote about Mao, and her full response. All you have done now is taken out the main part about Mao, and then added her full inflammatory response, both of which things are reverting the status that was established. It's not enough to not want this to be in the article it is in the article, and thus if you do it justice by showing her exact quotes on Mao in the speech, and not just her full response.
JohnHistory (
talk)
01:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
- Also, taking out that it was a Beck "exclusive" video (as CNN states) and other erased stuff just makes the topic more vague and begs the question of "why"she was addressing him, etc far too much, but my main problem is the above stated erasing of her quote on Mao, and then using her full response quote. All of the reasons given so far have not been logical, or made any sense, and are contradicted by the use of her full response which was inflammatory. I say add them both. That's the only way to be balanced. Right now it's censored on one side and slanted in Dunn's favor. What's the problem with covering what she said about Mao in her own words, and the giving her response to the speech in her own words?
JohnHistory (
talk)
02:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
For instance, the way it has been reverted makes it so vague that one could think Beck was "criticizing" her references to Mother Teresa.
JohnHistory (
talk)
02:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
- I have reverted to the version more or less of 13:46, 20 October 2009 by Loonymonkey, with some minor modifications and added her full quote.
- As it stood, it was slanted far to much to the left. The first paragraph was and is an accusation by Dunn against Fox News, with no response from the right. The second paragraph is Dunn's quote, followed by "Beck criticized her" and then an extended quote from Dunn which includes a pointless ad-hominem insult of Beck. Not acceptable. Three points:
- More detail of just what Beck criticized her of is vital to anyone seeking information. We cannot give minute detail to her response while ignoring what she was responding to. This in no way violates
WP:PEACOCK. By saying that Beck accused her of communist or pro-Mao sympthies, we are reporting a simple and vital fact, not editorializing.
- We do not need to include Dunn's ad-hominem empty insult of Beck's sense of irony. It adds no useful information.
- I have included the full quote of what she said. If everyone agrees on what part can be deleted, then that part should be deleted. Any part without such agreement should stay.
PAR (
talk)
03:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- You're being rather inconsistent there. You insist on providing this ridiculously long quote and then turn around and claim that a single sentence of her response "adds no useful information." Whether you personally agree with what she says or not is irrelevant. Her response is the most newsworthy part of it (and the only thing that generated a real
WP:RS, not an editorial). That she gave a speech to a graduating class is not newsworthy or notable to her biography. That Glenn Beck attacked her is not notable to her biography (he attacks lots of people every day). That the WH Communications Director responded directly to a political attack is newsworthy and potentially notable (although I tend to think not, as this is a minor incident from a single news cycle which will be forgotten in a month). Sorry, but you can't simply say
"I don't like it!" and remove the quote. As for Beck's response, summarizing it in your own words is unacceptable. That is not how Wikipedia works. And then, if we are going to have Beck's editorial opinion attacking her, we should balance it with some editorial opinion defending her, but then the entire section will become even more ridiculously, unduly long. Which is the point of all this to begin with.
- It has become clear to me that this isn't going to go anywhere without the involvement of outside editors with much more experience in these matters. I'm going to file a notice at the BLP noticeboard and we can all abide by whatever the consensus there is. --
Loonymonkey (
talk)
14:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- LoonyMonkey wrote: You insist on providing this ridiculously long quote and then turn around and claim that a single sentence of her response "adds no useful information."
- Read what I said - I do not insist on this long quote, I provided it and I suggest that anything we can all agree to cut out, lets cut it out.
- LoonyMonkey wrote: Whether you personally agree with what she says or not is irrelevant. Her response is the most newsworthy part of it. and also: Sorry, but you can't simply say "I don't like it!"
- Read what I said - I did not agree or disagree about Beck's sense of irony - in fact, I agree, he probably has very little. The point is that it is a useless
ad-hominem insult that contains no information. I will likewise object to the inclusion of any empty insult of her from the right.
- LoonyMonkey wrote: As for Beck's response, summarizing it in your own words is unacceptable.
- Whatever you prefer - Beck's most pointed quote against her runs like this: "... the most important political philospher for her is Mao Zedong. Oh, and Mother Theresa. The guy responsible for more deaths than any other 20th century philosopher? How can that man be your favorite anything? He killed 70 million people..." - I think we can summarize that adequately by saying "Beck criticized her for her use of the quote and for stating that Mao was one of her favorite political philosophers." If you prefer the former, I expect the partisan right will agree, and I will not revert.
PAR (
talk)
18:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with PAR. If we quote Dunn's insult we would need to also quote Beck's insult, to maintain a NPOV. As it stands, the article states what happens, and provides sufficient detail to understand the stance that each side took in the argument. I think the article has reached a nice NPOV on the matter.
Jwesley78 (
talk)
18:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- You're completely missing the point. This a biography article about Anita Dunn, NOT a debate about whether she's right or wrong. You still have not given any valid reason for removing the quote under wikipedia policies or guidelines. Again,
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for removal. And as an aside, you seem unclear on the concept of ad-hominem. Simply directing a barb at someone does not constitute an ad-hominem attack. Or are you also arguing that Beck's attacks on her are also ad-hominem? This inconsistency makes me suspect that your vehemence on this issue has less to do with a desire to improve the article and much more to do with POV-pushing. --
Loonymonkey (
talk)
19:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- LooneyMonkey, Do you think the article as-is does not have an NPOV on this matter? You think by adding Dunn's insult it will become (more) neutral? Please explain. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jwesley78 (
talk •
contribs)
19:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- The section has serious NPOV and
WP:WEIGHT issues at the moment. The fact that this minor political attack that was editorialized upon by a few sources on the right and then died after a news cycle makes up about a third of her biography is nonsense. That said, If were going to have this extended paragraph in her biography about Glenn Beck attacking her (and repeating some of his charges) it is highly relevant that she responded directly at Beck and not just in general. Saying "it's an insult" or
I don't Like It is not a valid argument against including it. I could easily say that Beck's attack is also an insult, but that has nothing to do with my reasoning. --
Loonymonkey (
talk)
19:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- The reason this matter "makes up about a third of her biography" is b/c it's the most "newsworthy" event to happen during her tenure. Most Americans had never even heard of her until this event.
- I think the article makes it clear "that she responded directly at Beck".
- Being "an insult" and not part of her "defense", it is not relevant to the topic.
Jwesley78 (
talk)
20:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think the way it is now is both informative, in context, and relevant. Loonymonkey and hypercapitalist seems hellbent on censoring her speech, and then not censoring her response, even to the point of including a personal attack, but not Beck's personal attack of course. The former is like saying the pickles are "more important" then the burger.
JohnHistory (
talk)
21:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
- LoonyMonkey, no one is editorializing about whether Anita Dunn is right or wrong. I have removed several edits from the right which were doing just that. I have repeatedly said that the removal of Dunn's insult of Beck's sense of irony is not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. By ignoring my reasons and subtituting an invented reason, you are engaging in a
straw man argument.
- Dunn's insult of Beck's sense of irony is indeed an ad hominem. Lets review the concept of the
ad hominem argument:
- An ad hominem argument has the basic form:
- Person 1 (i.e.Beck) makes claim X (i.e. Dunn stated that Mao was one of her favorite political philosophers and as a political leader Mao was a mass murderer, therefore Dunn's statement is objectionable).
- There is something objectionable about Person 1 (Beck's "sense of irony may be missing")
- Therefore claim X is false (or at least questionable)
- If the third part is not accurate, then she was not responding to Beck's criticism and again, it needs to be eliminated as being off-point. Beck's accusation is not an ad hominem (although I'm sure we could find plenty of those and deny their inclusion just as vehemently). It is criticism of her statements based on Mao's behavior as a political leader.
- As far as weight issues are concerned, let's analyze:
- Paragraph 1
- a) Dunn states that Fox News is an arm of the Republican party - one point for the left
- b) Dunn states that the attack is not ideological, there are many right wing commentators. This does not lessen the force of the attack, it just narrows its scope. But it's a semi wimp-out, so lets give the right 1/2 point.
- Paragraph 2
- a) Dunn's quote - It favors the right to even mention this quote, but she implied qualified support for Mao, not unconditional. Give the right 1/2 point.
- b) Beck's criticism (diluted) - give the right 1 point
- c) Dunn's response - give the left 1 point
- Sounds even to me. To include Dunn's ad-hominem sneer offers no light, only heat.
PAR (
talk)
21:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- You're still misunderstanding what constitutes an ad hominem. She was not saying that the claim was wrong because it came from Beck. She stated that it was wrong because she was being ironic and then directed a zinger at Beck. A common misperception is that any insult in an argument automatically makes it ad hominem, but this is not the case. It has to do with the structure of the argument itself. But that's irrelevant. Even if it were an ad hominem attack, that would not be a valid reason to exclude it, this being an article about her! And given that the only (non-editorial) reliable source for this was an article about her response, to argue that it is not relevant is to argue that the entire thing is not relevant. To claim that Beck's opinion of her (in her biography) is relevant but her opinion of Beck is not is cynically tendentious.
- Also, you seem to have a completely perverted notion of
WP:NPOV. You apparently believe it's some sort of football game with points on either side and if the points all add up then the article is balanced. No, Wikipedia doesn't work that way at all. It's disturbing that an editor that has managed to stick around for four years would think that it does.
- Really, there's no point in going in circles here. It's clear to me that there are two or three editors more than willing to edit-war to push a particular POV on this article. Since I avoid edit-wars, and since this page is only watch-listed by a dozen or so editors, there is little hope of resolution. I'm going to open it up to the larger wikipedia community to sort out. --
Loonymonkey (
talk)
01:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Reposting because it took me so long it was placed out of it's chronological order. I agree with PAR and Wesley (sp?) I think the way it is now is both balanced, informative, in context, and relevant. Loonymonkey and hypercapitalist seem hellbent on censoring her speech, and then not censoring her response, even to the point of including a personal attack, but not Beck's personal attack of course. The former is like saying the pickles are "more important" then the burger.
JohnHistory (
talk)
21:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
- Although I don't think tallying points is the best way to determine NPOV, I agree with PAR that the article is neutral (or as close as we can get it). There are no "sneers" currently in the text, it simply presents the facts and provides the most relevant quotes for the sake of providing the reader with a "full picture" of the conflict. If the reader needs details (e.g., the sneers) they can go directly to the sources. Also, sorry I triggered the page protection. After my first revert, I should've stepped back and left the page alone for awhile. :(
Jwesley78 (
talk)
21:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think it was justified fully.
My main problem was that having just the one statement of her saying Mao is "one of her favorite political philosophers" is that it then makes it seem like that was the only thing she said, and then you follow that up with her saying "She meant favorite political philosopher as irony" and she got the idea from Atwater thus the reader leaves thinking it was just one thing, and that she addressed the entire issue when it was really a whole story about Mao that she made and which her refutation does not begin to address in its entirety.
JohnHistory (
talk)
00:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
- But thats not an issue if we have the entire quote, is it? I mean, what you are saying is essentially an editorial statement and should not go in. This is why I like the Media Matters defense of her statement. It is to the point, it adresses the "favorite philosopher" quote and points out that she did not say she supported Mao's atrocities. Her responses do not address that point. On the other hand, they are her responses, rather than someone else coming to her defense. OK, This is not about the right vs the left, this is about Anita Dunn vs Fox News. That means Media Matters is out, I guess. But still no editorializing. If there is a counter statement by Fox pointing this out, lets put it in, with something else from the left, otherwise trust the reader to decide on the relevance of her response.
PAR (
talk)
00:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- So wait. You're saying that Beck's editorial opinion attacking Dunn belongs in her biography but third-party editorial opinion defending her does not? The mind reels.....--
Loonymonkey (
talk)
01:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
|