Talk:Anita Dunn/Archive 1

Personal Life

Biographical information about Mao Tse Tung does not belong in the "personal life" section of Anita Dunn's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.254.119.46 (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be reasonable to mention her two favorite political philosophers, not necessary with biographies of the both but with wiki-references to corresponding articles.--VictorAnyakin (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Other Biography pages do not have mentions and links to every philosopher in a person's life. We would have to add that Stephen C. Shadegg "followed the advice of Mao Tse-Tung." We would have to add that Ralph Reed often cited Mao and the Viet Cong. Additionally, Karl Rove is on record saying President Bush recommended a Mao biography. This precedent is dumb. Take this "fact" down. Styern (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a fact, not a "fact". Since this fact got some attention, namely, on a popular TV show, my guess is that it should be mentioned here. Especially that it is not so often when high level US officials admit their sympathy for Mao Tse Tung.--VictorAnyakin (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly consider adding a "Controversies" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.180.193.45 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck being ignorant isn't so much a controversy as a fact of life.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, nice and neutral Sarek. Guess we know where you're coming from. 65.60.160.214 (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me it's Glenn Beck that's working hard to inform himself and others about the members of the Obama administration. Maybe you should try it. Mc6809e (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck coverage

Seems that devoting most of an entire show to this woman is certainly notable, but the rule of thumb appears to be that no mention of sympathies for communist leaders of persons in the administration can be mentioned until either it shows up in the New York Times or after the person is fired/resigns. See Van Jones and Mark Lloyd, still no mention there about his speech about Hugo Chavez's "democratic revolution" Is it OK to quote her remarks about the Fox network on CNN? Bachcell (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

A rather cynical view. The problem at this point is that the event is unfolding news, news which has not been reported in mainstream media. It should soon get coverage. I'll try using this source to add the information in a more or less neutral way. Fred Talk 19:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck has become part of the mainstream media. If he wasn't part of the mainstream media, no one would be talking about him so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mc6809e (talk • contribs) 21:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The irony is not lost on this editor, that Fox News Channel is now being redefined as "not part of the mainstream media," perhaps as if in response to the subject of this very article. Never mind that there's video which can be reviewed. I suggest it be included in the record.206.124.6.222 (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The page as it stands (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anita_Dunn&diff=320275273&oldid=320274755) is fairly biased at the moment. The statement about the Glenn Beck coverage does not even address the points that he brought up, instead it leaves out information to provide a non neutral point of view. Also, the source title "Beck falsely claimed Anita Dunn "worships" "her hero" Mao Zedong" isn't an objective viewpoint. The point of the source is for facts, and when an article is titled with an opinion it loses its ability to be called a neutral source. Caffine112 (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The source cited is reliable for the purpose of showing that the event, Glenn Beck's attack, occurred. I agree that the title is unfortunate. The source for "the points that he brought up" would have to be his video blog on the Fox News Channel" which is not acceptable. We don't have a good source for content of those accusations at this point. In the video Mao is cited as a "political philosopher"; there is no endorsement by Dunn of his policies, other than an implied right to "fight his own war". Fred Talk 20:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The event has already been noted not only by the right wing, but also by HuffPo and the Chicago Tribune, so it's not appropriate to simply delete the entire section, as was done. If it seems biased to quote the pro-administration Media Matters that "it is false to believe that Dunn worships Mao, nothing in the clip proves that she admires the deaths of tens of millions of people", then find somebody else who supports her that states their support in a better way. As it is, one source, Beck is an event in itself, balanced by two sources who basically support her. WP should not be like the New York Times, carefully scrubbing the news of anything like this until somebody resigns and they have pretty much have to report it, and admit that they basically deliberately ignored it. Bachcell (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That's the thing though, it shouldn't be from a source that supports her, it should be from a source that is neutral. Caffine112 (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Replace it with a better one, when it becomes available. However, keep in mind that the attack was the significant event, not the content of it. Fred Talk 20:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The point of the article is Anita Dunn, not Glenn Beck. I rewrote the quote more fully, it is what it is. I did not include the "basic point" that she mentioned, which was a rather non-specific appeal to independent thinking, but colored certainly by reputation of the sources (Mao and Mother Teresa). After the quote comes the comments from the right and the left. PAR (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No weasel words. "Alleged" is the number one weasel word. The clip was presented AS evidence of communist sympathies. That does not speak to the credibility of the evidence. Next someone will say Media Matters for America "alleged that the video clip failed to demonstrate..." and the weasel war begins. PAR (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The question of whether she made a point or attempted to make a point should not be discussed here. Let the quote speak for itself, any one interested can follow the link. Ok, I guess we have to include more of the quote. I rewrote it slightly. Regarding the telephone hot line, I don't think the fact that Anita Dunn did not respond to the offer to call Glenn Beck gives much insight into her philosophy. No white house communications director in their right mind, from the left or the right, would respond to such an offer. I may be wrong on that, but if we add this to the description, we need to add a response from the left as to the reasons for her not responding, in order to maintain balance.PAR (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) The clip is evidence that one of her two favourite political philosophers is Mao. No source can deny this since that is what she claims with her own words. This is a notable event. Also, the quote she uses from Mao shows support for the idea that each is free to use the means he wants to achieve his ends; a source could although be used to show contrary evidence. But whether or not one can say that she is a communist supporter from this clip alone seems more fragile. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it should also be mentioned what the argument amounts to:

1. Dunn favors Mao as a political philosopher. 2. Mao killed millions of people. 3. Therefore, Dunn favors killing millions of people.

You could see this argument in terms of induction as one piece of evidence that Dunn may, possibly, favor the killing of millions of people. If something drastic happens down the right and the Obama administration does something like kill millions of people then it would indeed be relevant to cite this.

But as it stands the argument is highly unsound and the conclusion of a highly paranoid, yet popular, television personality. --- Kevin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.246.121.114 (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you people daft? The argument is that she admires a mass murder. The implication is hardly that she is also a mass murder or an outright communist; rather it is that she seems to believe the ends justify the means and lacks principle or strong moral fiber. Geese, you don't honestly think Beck was suggesting she's going to turn out the Red Guard, do you? -- Madas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.199.144 (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because you admire one's philosophy doesn't mean that you agree with the means that they used to obtain the end result, but who knows? She says one thing then says something else. Trying to keep track of what some of these Obama Administration blokes believe in is like trying to keep track of one specific molecule of air as it travels throughout the earth's atmosphere. It's just not going to happen. BrenMan 94 (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Biography

Does anyone have information about her educational background? Where she attended school, when she graduated, and her academic field of study/degrees received? Ronewirl (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Mao and Mother Theresa

Collapsing discussion for ease of scrolling

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. RayTalk 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 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.htmlJohnHistory (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)

You can keep discussing above if you want, it's not archived. However, I'd suggest continuing toward consensus in the section below. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Building Consensus - Mao & Mother Theresa

I think it would be helpful for us to focus on what changes (if any) need to be made to the article from its current state. Perhaps we can find some compromise which doesn't stray too far from where we are already. We'll never agree on a final state, but we can meet in the middle. Jwesley78 (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The PR war between her and Fox belongs in her biography so certainly those exchanges belong. But by what NPOV criteria do we decide what third-party editorials to include and what to omit?

As far as what changes should be made, I think if we could pare down or paraphrase the quote that _might_ be good. We have to include her "favorite philosophers" statement:

The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Zedong and Mother Theresa -- not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point

We have to include the Mao quote:

You fight your war, and I'll fight mine

I think some context for the quote should also be included. We have to include at least part of her interpretation of that quote, i.e. her point:

You don't have to accept the definition of how to do things and you don't have to follow other peoples choices and paths. ... You don't let external definition define how good you are internally, you fight your war, you let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path.

How to string these together, I don't know. PAR (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

PAR, no you are right by giving the whole quote (as it is now) then it's not a problem, I agree. In terms of context, I mean she lays out the context explicitly in the section in there. It would be hard for us to then provide another context to her context. My point was to those who are saying it should be gone, and I was just saying why it was misleading before, not now. I think it's very clear what she is saying in the beginning, middle, and end of the section. The best way to have a continual war on this is to interpret her, you can't argue with her own words so I think we should keep it the way it is now. Otherwise, it's going to be a POV war. This is about as good as it can get right now, I don't know why we would reopen pandoras box. JohnHistory (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

If it will form a consensus, I'm willing to concede to having Anita Dunn's full quote which includes her insult of Beck (i.e., "... sense of irony missing."). I don't think her insult makes Beck look any worse, nor Dunn any better. It simply shows that she responded, perhaps appropriately, with a personal attack back at Beck. Jwesley78 (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all, you're starting with the assumption that this entire thing belongs in the article and the question is just how we should tweak it, maybe remove something here, add something there. The point still stands that this is non-notable to her biography. Commentators like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann attack someone every night, but we don't rush to add it to their biographies. It has to be notable to an encyclopedic understanding of the person. This is not. It is not like the Van Jones affair, it is a non-story. This incident generated a couple of editorials on the political right but was not picked up by the news media and disappeared within a news cycle. We have exactly two reliable sources for this, neither of which recount the long quote. One is the Fox article, which is about the separate WH issue and mentions it in a couple sentences towards the end. The other is the CNN article reporting on her response to Beck (the very same response that keeps getting removed because a couple of editors don't like it). Frankly I see very little hope of consensus here because so few editors watch this article and a couple of editors are willing to edit-war simply to push a POV. It is my hope that other editors will join in and resolve this matter, bringing the article back in line with Wikipedia policies. The notion that we need to insert Beck's editorial opinion into her biography, even though it wasn't newsworthy, yet we must not include her response to Beck, even though it was newsworthy, is beyond absurd. It would be laughable if it weren't so cynical. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What Loonymonkey said. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

But, loonymonkey you are wrong. This is not "an attack" by Beck similar to other TV or radio personalities, this is a speech she gave. Beck is only mentioned because he broke the story. There is a big difference between somebody "attacking" somebody else, and a speech. Speeches are definitely relevant to people's bio's and this speech was so notable that the AP, CNN, Fox, etc have all discussed it. JohnHistory (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHIstory

Beck is not a reporter, he is a commentator. And no, a speech at a high school is not relevant to her biography. The fact that Beck attacked her for the speech doesn't make it relevant. And your claim that he didn't attack her indicates that either you haven't actually read what he said about her or you don't understand the meaning of the word "attack." --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith: WP:AOBF Jwesley78 (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to "a couple of editors are willing to edit-war simply to push a POV". You must be referring to me, and I'm not trying to push a POV. Please leave out such claims. It only makes me angry b/c you *don't* know me. Whether you like it or not, *we* must come to a consensus together. I'm not pushing a POV. I'm trying to make the content neutral, the question (you just asked) is whether this content belongs here in the first place. I need to take some time to think about it. My first thought is "Yes, of course", but let me think about it a little longer. Jwesley78 (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, I wasn't referring to you. It's just coincidence that the page was protected after your last edit. I used vague language because this is clearly not the place for direct accusations, but edit-warring undeniably took place (there were multiple violations of WP:3RR. As far as I can tell, you did not violate WP:3RR. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

After further thought, I think this topic does not belong in this article (i.e., her biography). Since, as White House Communications Director, she (at least partially) orchestrated the White House's more hostile tone toward Fox News, this content would be more appropriately placed in 2009 White House criticism of Fox News (or wherever that article's content ends up being placed). While this event did make her name more widely known, in the broad view of her life it's likely a minor event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwesley78 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Does the AP, CNN and Fox, etc coverage not make it relevant to someone with a relatively small profile prior to this? I think so. Also, consider how remarkable a statement it is. Most people who had the previously mentioned outlets cover a speech they made that dramatically boosted their profile, would consider it a notable part of their bio. Let's face it, this is one of the things she is best known for now. JohnHistory (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory (Jwesley78 (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

I agree that this event is notable, and boosted her profile. (And I also find her stated admiration of Mao to be slightly disturbing.) The question in my mind is "where" this topic belong (not "whether" it belongs in Wikipedia). Is it more notable as an event in her life (i.e. her biography), or as an event within the context of 2009 White House criticism of Fox News? I think it belongs in the latter. Jwesley78 (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A little research: Here are links to Wikipedia articles on former White House communications directors and counsels to the president:

• Ellen Moran (Obama comm. dir.)
• Kevin Sullivan (Bush comm. dir.)
• Nicolle Wallace (Bush comm. dir.)
• Dan Bartlett (Bush comm. dir. and counsel)
• Ed Gillespie (Bush counsel)
• Karen Hughes (Bush counsel)

Please check for the existence of "long quotes" (esp. Gillespie, Bartlett, Hughes) and the existence of discussions of controversies encountered during their tenure (esp. Wallace and Bartlett.) If this sort of thing must be purged from their biographies, we have a lot of work to do.

A fundamental question regarding the Anita Dunn quote: does this give insight into the question "Who is Anita Dunn?" If it does, it should be left where it is. Same criteria should be applied elsewhere. PAR (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The quotes in those three article (i.e., Gillespie, Bartlett, Hughes) appear to be quotes made while the biographee was working in an official capacity as "Communications Director" (please correct me if I'm wrong). These quotes seem to be relate directly to their work. The long quote of Dunn was in public, but made as a speaker at a high school graduation (not as part of her official work for the White House). Had Beck not found the video, it might have never been "known" about. Jwesley78 (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

That might be right, but I don't see why that matters. Why does any of that matter? 170.215.236.116 (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The logic is (I presume), "If we allow long quotations about controversial material in the biographies of other WHCD's, then why should Dunn be any different?" Jwesley78 (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, I'm saying that any argument that a "long quote" (controversial or not) should be eliminated simply because of its length should be applied consistently. If its ok in the other articles, then its ok here. If not here, then not there either. My personal opinion is that they are used to good effect in those other articles. If we all agree, then the only question we have to ask is whether the long quote here is useful or not, and not worry about its present length. What I didn't understand was whether you were recommending that only her official quotes as WHCD should be allowed, and that unofficial and especially "leaked" quotes during her tenure as WHCD should be eliminated. PAR (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never claimed that the quote should be removed b/c it's long. (Perhaps others have?) Anyways, you're bypassing my point that her biography is not the best place for this quote. Do you disagree? Jwesley78 (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was responding to LoonyMonkey regarding the quote length. As far as this being the best place, I would look to other articles for guidance (as above) and to the WP:BLP page, and the link to the foundation report as well. It seems to me that the other articles suggest that the quote is not out of ordinary practice. I don't remember now, but one, maybe two of the long quotes do not flatter the subject. The WB:BLP page is very concerned with neutrality and unsourced contentious material, as well as considering the fact that the person we are writing about can be affected by what we write. It does not say that contentious material should be omitted, however. In other words, there are no violations here. I think this is the best place for it, but where do you think it would better go, and why? PAR (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PAR, this is most appropriate for her bio and has many precedents. I don't object to it being mentioned in other articles such as the Fox News one, but the speech in context should be in her bio. How many of us have given speeches? How many of us have given speeches meant to encourage graduating seniors? How many of us have had our speeches covered by the AP, Fox, CNN. How important are your two favorite political philosophers to your bio? I would argue that their omission would be glaring given the publicity of all of this and the impact on her profile, yet alone them being good things to include about someone. JohnHistory (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHIstory

John, what "many precedents" are you referring to? I don't see anything similar in the bio's of previous WHCDs. Jwesley78 (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the speech is not noteworthy except in the context of the White House/Fox News controversy, i.e. 2009 White House criticism of Fox News. If the controversy had not occurred, this speech would've been a non-issue. Jwesley78 (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I do think that a mention of the 2009 White House criticism of Fox News should be noted within (and the topic should be linked to from) her biography. But, I think the "back-and-forth" between her and Beck, and other details of this controversy belong in the 2009 White House criticism of Fox News article. Jwesley78 (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is not much of the back and forth between Beck and Anita in it currently? How many speeches has Dunn given, and where else has she laid out her two favorite political philosophers? How can, to a politically involved person, there two "favorite political philosophers" "That they turn to most" not be relevant to their Bio? I don't understand how that has more to do with the War on Fox News, then to Anita Dunn. Obviously that is important biographical info, and I'm not sure how many other speeches she has ever given. So, I see this as very relevant to her bio. JohnHistory (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

First, let me be clear that just because other articles do something does not mean it is justified here. I do think that there should be consistency, which means perhaps the other articles need adjusting. Regarding "precedents", please look at the Ed Gillespie and Dan Bartlett bios. Both have rather long quotes, one from the subject, another from an editorial about the subject. The quotes are not flattering, and in the case of the Gillespie bio, its particularly bad. Interestingly, the quote is about how Gillespie is handling a PR war between the White House and the media. That said, the ultimate determinant of how to write this article is WP:BLP with guidance as to how it is interpreted to be found in other articles. The idea that the Dunn speech is not important because it would have been lost in the noise but for Beck ... this makes no sense to me. I mean just because something almost wasn't discovered doesn't make it unimportant. PAR (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the article to which I thought the content was more relevant has been deleted (i.e., 2009 White House criticism of Fox News), I've edited the quote out of the main article and made it a footnote. I also clarified that Beck's attack was likely in response to what Dunn had said on CNN. It's likely that neither side will be happy with this edit, but I feel it to be a good compromise for now (until we can find a better place for this Fox News controversy). Jwesley78 (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Admission of Media Manipulation

Collapsing off-topic discussion

While I totally agree that there's almost nothing more humorous than watching wikipedia contradict its' own standards by doing whatever it can to act as if the libertarian/conservative/rightist viewpoint simply doesn't exist or comes straight from the asylum, could someone post Dunn's admission to "controlling" the media? I know quoting people's actual statements isn't a valid source if it paints someone on the left in a negative light irrdisantimegaregardless of whether or not they're hanging themselves with their own words based upon the Mao/Stalin/Hitlerist propaganda standard, do you think we could get the permission of the communo-facists on just this one? I promise not to ask for anymore admission of factual evidence in the future. By the way, I'm gay. Does that help with credibility? I'm also black and female, oh, and jewish. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.204.148 (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC) There is no credible published source for Dunn's, or your, assertion. As Glen Beck himself said, all politicians attempt to influence the media. If Dunn misspoke, that still is not a reliable source, as it originates with her. Wishing doesn't make it so. Fred Talk 21:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Here're the videos. Be sure to attack the English language and credibility of Dunn's mouth for betraying her. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113347 Hey, you guys aren't fighting as hard as you used to, what with deleting any possible negative appearance of your gods. Getting tired? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.131.226 (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC) I guess that the "Obama campaign" section could be extended with her admittance that the PR team managed to squeeze massmedia and reporters to literally retransmit Obama message verbatim without any critical comments or discussion.--vityok (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Oh, you mean like Fox News did for Bush? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Oh, you mean that Obama is now indistinguishable from Bush? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.21.192.42 (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Anita Dunn respects Mao Tse Tung (Zedong) as a great philospher

In her October 15th speech, Anita Dunn said that her two favorite philosophers are Mao Tse Tung, the Chinese ruler who created a class war in China, and Mother Theresa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.78.14 (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, and there is a good source for part of that; but not the assertion that Mao created a class war. There was a civil war in China between two elite groups, one of which was more or less supported by peasants. That is not a class war in the sense used by contemporary Republican propagandists. Fred Talk 21:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a link on her page for American communists or American communist sympathizers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.27.4 (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

We would need a very good reference indeed for either link. What we have is a bare statement of her admiration for him as a political philosopher. Fred Talk 17:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

Anything more than a couple of lines for the Mao thing is excessive. If the reader wants more, they can follow the reference link. HyperCapitalist (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but a couple editors seem intent on edit-warring with this one, so I'm holding back (although it is interesting that they simultaneously keep trimming her response to just a few words). Really, it still hasn't been established that this has any notability to the biography, and certainly not to the extent that it now takes up the page. The notion that a quarter of her biography should be made up of that fact that she was attacked once by a political partisan is absurd. It's the very definition of undue weight, particularly in a biography of a living person. It isn't a news story like the Van Jones affair which was widely reported. Scraping the entire internet, all anyone has been able to come up with are a few partisan editorials (for and against her) and the one CNN story about her response, all based on the Beck attack. Beck attacks someone on his show every night. But we don't rush to add it to their biographies. Given the deadlock, I think we should take it to the BLP Noticeboard and let the larger community decide whether it's appropriate and (how much weight to give it if it is). --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's comical that there is this wall of text quote making up so much of the article. It's like copying and pasting the text of the State of the Union address into the article on the State of the Union address -- cause ya know, we wouldn't be covering the material fairly if we didn't... Just quote that she loves Mao and Mother Teresa and let the reader use the referece as, well, a reference. HyperCapitalist (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hyper, if I recall correctly, you didn't even think this whole issue was worth noting in the article at all originally so I think you have made your POV clear i.e., you don't want any of this in the article, and if it is in, you want the least amount of her speech in as possible. Comparing a State of the Union Address to the text of her speech in the article is nonsensical. There is no comparison between the length of the two, and there are thousands of wiki articles with as long or longer passages in them currently. My problem with just having 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" 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 address.JohnHistory (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

John, I don't think I have understood a single one of your posts. I'm sorry, I just can't make sense of your writing style. HyperCapitalist (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw this on the BLP noticeboard. I'm dealing with a similar situation on another BLP article. I agree that anything longer than a few lines is going overboard. Extended quotes are unnecessary and only create undue weight problems. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a longer quote is better, as it puts the notable parts in context, although the venue is also important, an Episcopal High School. What was it, a commencement? Then there is her claim of irony. Fred Talk 13:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

New article about Fox News partisanship allegations

Since the 2009 Fox News – White House controversy is as much about the White House as about the Fox News Channel, I figured maybe it it warrants specific coverage in its own article rather than somehow it info's being split between the article about Fox News Channel controversies in general and the one about the Obama administration in general.

By the way, would it be possible that some items presently covered in this article might find better placement in this other one?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 02:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

When it is a substantial section written there, use Template:Main but don't remove the brief content here. Fred Talk 17:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Admits White House is controlling media

[4] Richard (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The source does not support your conclusion, "very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control." is, as is pointed out in the article, working around the media, not controlling it. Fred Talk 17:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Criticize"

Beck didn't "criticize" Dunn. He attacked her, devoting an entire episide to her comments, and comparing her to a follower of Hitler.

It's insanity. This is her hero's work. She thinks of this man's work all the time? It would be like me saying to you, 'you know who my favorite political philosopher is? Adolf Hitler.' Have you read Mein Kampf? (She wants to) fight your fight like Hitler did."[5]

— goethean ॐ 15:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That is my observation also, but what is the reliable source? Fred Talk 13:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

When I watch him I keep comparing him to Hitler, McCarthy is a given, but where is the reliable source that supports that? Fred Talk 13:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing to Fox?

I inserted a reference to the original Fox video of the Beck presentation awhile back. I notice it has been removed yet again. Was this an unintentional casualty of our editing process, or is there a consensus to give a reference to criticism of Fox, but not to Fox itself? Ray^Talk 16:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No there is no consensus, but I've noticed that there is some resistance to external video links to anything. For what's it's worth; I think a link to Beck's presentation belongs in the article. Links to all of them even. He's seldom had a program without mentioning Dunn lately. Or at least putting her picture up next to Mao. Fred Talk 02:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say, though, that, in general, Fox is should not be considered a reliable source. Peer review seems to have broken down. Fred Talk 02:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Fred, compared to the sources I've seen cited in many other articles, Fox news is (comparably) reliable. If nothing else, you can preface the claim with "According to Fox News...". (MSNBC is known for its popular liberal talk show hosts, but few claim MSNBC "should not be considered a reliable source".) "Reliability" of sources is a difficult issue to address. I need to look for Wikipedia's policy on this.Jwesley78 (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Here you go: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Jwesley78 (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is to use partisan sources, of what ever stripe with great care. I generally don't trust what is see in Nation or The People's Daily either, but that doesn't mean everything in them is made up. Even Pravda had truth in it. However, it is an editor's responsibility to critically evaluate sources: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." A Wikipedia editor is responsible for adequately evaluating the bias of sources. Thus at times, the bias of Fox News, and the other sources I cite, may interfere with the credibility of a particular source. Fred Talk 08:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It depends, especially when dealing with partisan issues. For example, for a claim about a position taken by the (U.S.) Democratic Party, one should not cite the Republican Party's website. In this case the Republican party website would not be a "reliable source" (b/c they are likely in opposition to the claimed position), especially considering one could, as easily, quote the real source (i.e., a Democratic Party website) directly. ... or vice-versa (Democratic/Republican -> Republican/Democratic). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwesley78 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Remark Perhaps I have been misunderstood. Whatever the merits of including reporting by partisan advocacy groups such as Media Matters for America as sources, I was under the impression that Fox News is an unimpeachable source and reference concerning the activities of Fox News. I would also argue that it qualifies as a reliable source by our (admittedly loose) standards in general, but that need not affect our analysis of the merits of this particular reference. If there is a Wikipedia consensus against including links to videos, that would indeed be news to me. Such links may contain warnings that they are links to videos, lest the bandwidth of slow-connection users be wasted. Ray^Talk 16:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Mao Speech Censorship (I knew this would happen)

I knew this would happen. Listen, I'm off to Europe for several months, but I couldn't help make on final note about how I knew that this would become a "Beck issue" instead of a way to understand who her "two favorite political philosophers" were. I love how "Beck" is now mentioned more then "mao" as regards her explicit speech about Mao. I think that you here are doing a disservice to wikipedia, but at least let it be that in it's total flamboyant censoring way and thus discredit the effort entirely then some half assed equivocation. Ultimately, this level of censorship of someone's own words, own speech, own declaration of "favorite political philosophers" will come down on the people here who allowed it's omission and will only further discredit something I once thought should be respected, but now no longer do. You are being laughed at by the public, and you don't even realize it. Don't mix facts with politics. That's not your duty. JohnHistory (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

The full quotes are in the footnote. The facts are all presented. Jwesley78 (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether we believe it or not, she claims that saying "favorite political philosopher" was meant as irony. We must give her the "benefit of the doubt". Jwesley78 (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not notice that the opening statement had been changed. We should not be giving the impression that the speech was or was not important, just the sequence of events. I have changed the opening statement to say that she made the speech, and it was picked up by Beck. As Jwesley says, the full quote is in the footnotes, and her defense of that statement must remain. PAR (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't like this change. The flow of the section is more awkward. It had already stated that the graduation speech was given in June. By the way, I believe the speech was given on June 3rd. Jwesley78 (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No the speech was June 5th. I misread this. Jwesley78 (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it reads well, but please change it to improve the flow if need be. I think JohnHistory's statement above is extreme, but one point is valid. As it was before, it was implying that the statement itself was not inflammatory and that the significance of the controversy was only that Beck went ballistic. The responsibility for the controversy lies with both parties and we should not imply otherwise. PAR (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I was tempted to close this thread since JohnHistory has been permanently blocked for this sort of behavior, but the discussion has continued productively without him. I would not give very much weight to his opinion in the OP, though. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

WRT Mao and Lee Atwater, the referenced footnote DOES NOT MENTION Atwater. People are talking out of their butts.206.124.6.222 (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Check it again, paragraph 2. PAR (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

My bad--was looking at footnote 17, somehow, not 15.206.124.6.222 (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Video?

I suggest the link to the video be posted inline, so people can see how "ironic" she's being (or not.) 206.124.6.222 (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The only video I could find which does not include anything said by Beck is this one. I know Youtube links are generally "frowned upon" on wikipedia. I'd like to hear what the other editors think about including a link to this in the footnotes. Jwesley₇₈ 00:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I figured a youtube link would be troublesome. I started to add a footnote to this particular one, and a comment about it, but people are quick to label it "vandalism" when someone who chooses not to have an account makes an edit that's so bold. 206.124.6.222 (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Beck's claim of Dunn's Hero

If we mention Beck's claim that Mao was her hero, I think we need to at least footnote to all that he had said. It makes no sense (with or without context) but I think the context should be given if we talk [about] the "Hero" claim. Jwesley₇₈ 20:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that she did not say that they were two of her favorite political philosophers when making a point ..., she said they were the ones she turned to most to make a point.... Also, lets not cherry-pick Becks statements, looking for the most outlandish. (thats not hard to find). Lets just make the valid point that he criticized her for her statements fairly and unfairly, without getting into the rhetoric. PAR (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This silly issue is overwhelming the page. It should not be included at all if it can't be contextualized, which would overwhelm the page. Does anyone seriously think that Anita Dunn "worships" Mao or that Mao is her "hero?" This is a classic example of blowing something out of proportion and should not be given space in an encyclopedia.Jimintheatl (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Put this on Beck's page if at all; it's not notable in Dunn's career.Jimintheatl (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've heard others also claim that this event was insignificant to her tenure. I would claim, instead, that it's one of the few events that were notable during her tenure. I agree that other material should be added, but to claim this event should be ignored does not seem reasonable. Jwesley₇₈ 04:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Notable to viewers of Beck's program, perhaps, but that's not the standard for notability that we use. Unlike the comments about Fox, it did not receive significant coverage and was not really even newsworthy. The fact that it takes up such a large part of her biography is ludicrous. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PAR. She said, what she said. And, in her later defense was the intended "irony", with no mention of an intended qualification of "favorite to make the point of...". And we have no source showing that she has ever claimed the "Mao" statement was anything other than (or in addition to) attempted irony. Jwesley₇₈ 04:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it fairly obvious she said it in a room full of people who also lean the same way, and was exposed and forced to backtrack. This is not entirely uncommon, whether it's a left-wing or right-wing extremist. No need to bury her comments because she drummed up an excuse for them. Her comments, particularly about Mao being an important philosopher to her (or exactly what she DID say) are important to people who believe in liberty, not Mao's totalitarian views. The way to split the hair is to post what she said, and to post her claim that she was attempting irony, and leave it at that (I believe that's how it was at one point.) 206.124.6.222 (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point, it appears the people who want to erase history have won, as no mention of it now exists at all. :-( 206.124.6.222 (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

White House Communications Director section

This needs a lot of work. We've got a section called Communications Director that doesn't even discuss her tenure at that job. The section was entirely devoted to the "war" with Fox (notable, but not the most important aspect of her career) and a large section about Glenn Beck's attacks on her (not notable and there has never been consensus to include it). We should expand the description of her actions at the job and possibly trim the fox section (it doesn't need so many quotes, we can paraphrase). --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The section is still devoted entirely to her "war" with Fox. Your edit only removed a notable event from her tenure, and now the section presents only her attacking Fox, i.e., it's pushing a POV. I would prefer it if you would restore the content until a consensus is found. Jwesley₇₈ 00:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's my point. It needs some work (an amount of work that I don't personally have time for this afternoon). As for consensus, since the burden is on those seeking to include material, the practice is that contentious copy stays out of an article until consensus is reached, not the other way around. This is particularly true when dealing with BLPs. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, consensus previously was found (see a few sections up). Now that she has stepped down, her tenure as WHCD can be discussed in toto. It appears that the primary event while she was WHCD was the "war" on Fox News. Doing a Google news search on 2009 for her name shows some interesting results. Majority of the result, including the first three relate to her "fight" with Beck. We can't ignore significant events while she was WHCD, and pretend they don't belong in her Bio. The content is well cited, and it's presented in a neutral way. Jwesley₇₈ 14:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry. You and PAR is not consensus. Not that it's a vote, but as many or more people are against inclusion as for it. It wasn't widely reported, did not receive notable coverage and is simply not a significant event to the the 99.3% of the American public that don't watch Beck's show. And the idea that a google search can be used to establish notability on Wikipedia was rejected years ago. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

When one searches news results for a person and the majority of results relate to a particular event, it gives strong evidence for notability. Of course, Google results do not determine notability, but they do provide an objective measurement for it. Are there any other actions which she took that were given more attention than this? What else should go in this section? It definitely needs to be extended. Jwesley₇₈ 20:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry, altho I prefer a more center of the road news channel, Fox News is constently the highest rated cable news network. Check out http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/08/05/cable-news-ratings-for-tuesday-august-4-2009/24258 for example. This is the general trend for every day, every month, not cherry-picked data.

Is Fox News part of the mainstream media? According to the administration, Fox News is not a legitimate news source. We cannot adopt this definition when deciding whether or not to include Fox's role in the dispute. In other words, we cannot use the administration's definition of "mainstream media" to determine what is newsworthy, that would be POV. Neither can we adopt the point of view that Fox IS part of the mainstream media, that would also be POV. In this special case, we simply have to use other criteria to determine what is noteworthy. Even without the above numbers, the simple fact that the white house and Anita Dunn believe it to be important enough to actively engage in this dispute makes it noteworthy. Fox news digging up a video, thats of arguable notability. Dunn defending against the resultant criticism makes it certainly noteworthy. This means that both sides of the dispute must be covered, ignoring the rhetoric and insults and concentrating on just the facts. The fact that the "mainstream media" (excluding Fox) has not given a lot of coverage is an important point and should be noted, but in this case, it cannot be used as a criterion for noteworthiness without a violation of NPOV. It begs the question. PAR (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You're confusing Fox News with Fox Opinion. By Fox's own admission, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. are not news. They are opinion. And as such, they are reliable and notable only on the subject of their own opinion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm with LooneyMonkey on this. Fox's creation and then coverage of a bogus controversy is not notable.Jimintheatl (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Coverage of these remarks from people other than Glenn Beck and Fox News:

• Huffington Post "And it's even true that some of the criticism of the right - for instance, Glenn Beck's criticism of Anita Dunn portraying Mao Zedong in a favorable light - isn't unwarranted.* -- * On this point, let me explain: IMHO, Beck is right - Dunn calling Mao one of her "favorite philosophers," even ironically, is no better than her calling Hitler one of her "favorite philosophers." Mao was a brutal dictator who killed millions of people."

• The Atlantic "Here's the full Dunn quote. I stand by that judgment. Dunn would never have used Hitler as a source for perseverance and setting the right objectives. Why Because Hitler's evil is self-evident. So why is Mao's rancid evil not self-evident for a person like Dunn? Because she retains a double standard for far left totalitarianism over far right totalitarianism."

• CBS News "We can believe there might be one statement like Van Jones's slander of “white people,” or Sonia Sotomayor's “wise Latina” boast, or Anita Dunn's lengthy praise of the mass-murdering Mao, but not an entire series of them. At some point, the American public snaps out of it, and sighs, “Wow, these people really are nuts!” "

• Washington Times "Mr. Sergant exhorted artists on a conference call to provide governmentally funded propaganda for the president. Miss Dunn extolled Mao Zedong as one of her two favorite "political philosophers," though neither was a philosopher. One was a saint, and Mao was a sadist.

He was also a bloodthirsty tyrant responsible for the death, imprisonment and torture of at least 70 million people."

• Pittsburgh Tribune "Anita Dunn, the White House's interim communications director, insists she was joking when she said Mao Zedong was one of her favorite philosophers. What a hoot, eh? That's right up there with praising Hitler for turning around the German economy and Mussolini for running the Italian trains on time."

• American Thinker Finally, an American president who has the sense to understand the utter foolishness of this God-given individual rights stuff. He is positively European in outlook, putting an avowed Marxist who sees his role at the Federal Communications Commission as pushing for the elimination of private media ownership, or having a self-confessed admirer of prominent "philosopher" Chairman Mao, Anita Dunn, as head of White House communications.

There are many others, but I've got to get back to other work. Jwesley₇₈ 18:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If you are seriously proposing including this trivia in an encyclopedia, then, per your sources, it has to be mentioned that Beck's attempts to link Dunn to Mao-worship were greeted with derision/skepticism/scorn by the reality-based community. If you're agreeable, I'm OK. Or is anyone willing to seriously argue that Dunn worships her hero Mao??? Please...Jimintheatl (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

We have spent a lot of time trying to sort out what is noteworthy and what is not. We try to back up statements with reasons and guidelines. Help us out here, can you explain what you mean by "created" and "bogus". I mean, you could say that Anita Dunn created the controversy by making the controversial statements and then defending against them, in which case its not bogus. Or are the statements not controversial? I think we as editors should be trying to decide this stuff using some kind of concrete criteria, not opinions, that we can apply across the board, irrespective of who is on the left and who is on the right. PAR (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the point. She didn't "create the controversy" because there wasn't any controversy. It's just one of the hundreds of attacks that pundits like Beck hurl at their political opponents and it didn't cross over and become an actual news issue. It was editorialized on in a few opinion pieces (mostly focusing on Beck) but the entire matter was forgotten by the next news cycle. It's barely notable from any standpoint, but certainly not as a biographical detail about Dunn. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point, there is no consensus for inclusion. So the info should be removed.Jimintheatl (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Maoist charge was Beck's retaliation for Dunn's criticism of Fox News. He blew her quote wildly out of context. While I agree that what I see as her attempt at ironic provocation was ill-advised, to go from there to claiming that Dunn "worships" her "hero" Mao is just plain dishonest. If you read the refs provided above, and not just cherry-pick quotes, the commentators make similar points. E.g., Huff Post: "That said, Beck is really absurdly wrong to suggest that Dunn's insensitivity means she is an ideological Maoist. That's just crazy. Oh, and I don't remember Beck apologizing for suggesting Hitler was one of politics' "best minds."" Or do you support including Beck's Hitler-worship on his page? I don't; it's making a cheap political point and has no place here.Jimintheatl (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've asked for a Third Opinion. I don't think the active participant in this current discussion will come to an agreement. Jwesley₇₈ 13:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood that the purpose of Third Opinion was for a dispute between (specifically) 2 editors (not 2 positions held by a group of editors). I should've read the page before posting. Jwesley₇₈ 15:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• In my mind there are three questions about content like this: 1) Is it notable? 2) Is it well-cited? 3) Is it presented in a neutral way?. I think all three can be answered "Yes". Those opposed to this content appear to either oppose 1) saying it's not notable, or oppose 3) saying the topic is inherently POV.

• It's notable; It has been discussed by a variety of bloggers and news organization, including the Huffington Post. (Which even claimed, to my surprise, that Beck was "right" about something.)
• The content is not inherently POV. The events did take place, and have become part of the public's "awareness". Both sides are presented here, including Dunn's rationale for the statement.

• There will be many readers who will hear accusations from the right of a "Maoist Dunn", and look to Wikipedia to find a neutral portrayal of the events that took place, and why an "absurd" accusation like that has been made. I think it's important that readers know the truth about the events. Jwesley₇₈ 14:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And what is the truth here, in your opinion.....Jimintheatl (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all my opinion about Dunn does not matter, and it does not influence my actions (nor should it). But since you asked, I think Beck's attack was in response to Dunn's statement 5 days earlier on CNN's Reliable Sources. I think Dunn quoted Mao b/c she liked the quote, not b/c she liked the man or what he did. I'm sure she was trying to be ironic, but failed to make that apparent. In any case, the controversy did happen and was notable. To not include it in her bio would appear to be censorship. The conditions for exclusion based upon WP:BLP (1. Neutral point of view (NPOV) 2. Verifiability 3. No original research) are not violated. Jwesley₇₈ 13:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A few partisan editorials within a single news cycle does not make it notable to a person's biography. This has nothing to do with her life and didn't affect her in any way. It might have been different if this had broken out into an actual widely-reported controversy like the Van Jones thing, (something Beck was obviously trying for) but that simply never happened. It was forgotten within days. Mentioning it in her biography would be ridiculously undue WP:WEIGHT. This article (and Wikipedia in general) isn't here to debunk or "provide context" for what is being said on attack blogs. This article exists simply to give biographical information about a living person. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Although this trivial incident should not be included, presenting this in any sort of reliable context would give it far too much weight and prominence.Jimintheatl (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The truth being that she said what she said, and later claimed she was being ironic. It should be on-record. 206.124.6.222 (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere, I repeat, nowhere, was any mention made of Beck's accusation that Anita Dunn "worships Mao" etc. and rightly so. Yet the article is repeatedly criticized as if it had pushed this POV. Very carefully we ironed out our disagreements and we have agreed to include only the quote, the fact that Beck criticized her for making the quote, and Dunn's response to that criticism. Every argument against notability excludes Fox News as a legitimate news source. This is exactly the administrations point of view in this dispute, and therefore it is POV. Just as certainly, to declare Fox News legitimate is also POV. We have to look elsewhere. The very fact that Anita Dunn responded to the criticism makes it noteworthy. If it were truly trivial she would have ignored it. To declare that any mention of the controversy is POV is to declare that the quote itself was not controversial. Again, it takes two to make a controversy, and the fact that she acknowledged the criticism renders it controversial. If coverage by what the administration defines as legitimate news outlets was low (which is very arguable, see Jwesleys list above) then that should be noted, but not used as a criterion of notability. Ok, enough of the careful arguments. Anyone who believes that this is trivial must be able to honestly say that if the tables were turned and it was a republican ComDir who made a similar statement during a republican administration's PR war with a left leaning member of the white house press pool, that they would just as vehemently want it to be expunged. I absolutely guarantee that I would not. I hope that further criticism can focus on these points. PAR (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What? She addressed the issue because she was ASKED about it, and then she LAUGHED at the criticism.Jimintheatl (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit of a strawman argument. Nobody has argued that Fox News is not a reliable source and the argument has never turned on that point. Again, you may be confusing Glenn Beck (who appears on the Fox News Channel) with Fox News (the news organization). Even Fox stated that Beck is opinion, not news. Also, it's a bit ironic that you now argue that it was Dunn's response that makes it noteworthy when you repeatedly tried to remove her response (claiming it was an "insult" to Beck) while inserting the criticism she was responding to. You acknowledge that this was not widely covered in the news (even on Fox), yet you're still unwilling to consider the possibility that this lack of coverage is a lack of notability. And you even go so far as to suggest that we should mention in the article that it was not widely covered? Why would we then mention it at all?

As for turning the tables ("what if it were a Republican?"), that little rhetorical device has always been problematic in discussions because it's just a subtle way of implying bad faith on the part of other editors (the implication being that they're only taking a position for partisan reasons). But to answer your question, yes, I would and have made the same arguments. In fact, at the Michelle Bachmann article (which is constantly under attack by POV pushers) I argued strongly for removing non-notable editorial criticism and out of context quotes from the biography (for that I was called a Right-Wing apologist). Having been in many, many discussions of this nature, I've found that when someone introduces accusations of partisanship into the argument, it often says more about their own motivations than those they accuse. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• The "turning the tables" statement was not an accusation of partisanship, it was a test for partisanship, that I use on my own opinions as well as others. I try to pass that test, and if you feel you have passed it as well, then fine, we are on different sides of the same page. I hope others will apply the same test to their own opinions as well. (LOL - how does it feel to be labelled a right-wingnut? I get that all the time from the left, unless I'm disagreeing with the right, in which case I'm a left-wingnut.)

• I have not confused Beck's show with Fox News. Yes, Beck's show is highly opinionated. But the video that he presented is not opinion, it is a fact. I do not acknowledge that it was lightly covered by Fox. It was mentioned in the context of the PR war for many news cycles on their news program. Any time you say "it received low coverage therefore it is not notable" I will say "If you include Fox, it was high coverage, if you exclude Fox it was lower coverage and it doesn't matter either way, because this is the very subject under dispute, and neither POV can be taken, we have to look elsewhere".

• Regarding removing her response, please listen to the argument again: We included her response, her "it was ironic" response and her "Atwater" response. We did not include her "Beck lacks a sense of irony" response because it was an information-free insult, much like Beck's accusation that she "worships Mao" which was also purposely eliminated for the same reason.PAR (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

We will likely need to utilize some tactics mentioned on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Jwesley₇₈ 15:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• It appears this conversation has "boiled down" to a question of WP:Notability. I would encourage each of us to read the policy and present good reason why it does, or does not, reach the threshold of "notability".
• Also WP:WEIGHT should be discussed. Here is the most relevant section from it

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may in the news. In some cases refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow these subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating an article to which they are non-central. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Jwesley₇₈ 14:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "notability" should be used to determine a topic's inclusion, and "weight" determines the space & prominence dedicated to its coverage. Jwesley₇₈ 15:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely. The two overlap, but are both used to determine inclusion. The classic example is that the Flat Earth Society is notable, but mentioning it on the Earth page would be undue weight.

Regarding the material you quoted above, that gets to the very heart of the matter. "...discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may in the news." This is exactly what I've been arguing all along. We can verify that Beck's criticism of Dunn has been mentioned in several editorials (and even one or two news stories) but it is completely disproportionate to include it in a biographical article about a person's life. It has nothing to do with her life or career. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I think we're getting to the heart of the matter. You claimed "It has nothing to do with her life or career". I would disagree. It would claim this was a notable event within the context of her tenure as WHCD. Somehow, we need to come to an agreement on this particular issue. I'm not sure how we can reconcile our two disparate views. Jwesley₇₈ 16:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The question is something like "Ten years from now, what will be considered noteworthy events while she was WHCD." Considering a relative dearth of other notable events, the Beck controversy seems obvious. Jwesley₇₈ 16:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think the section heading "Mao Tse-tung Controversy" should be removed (i.e., too much prominence), but its paragraph (or something similar to it) should be preserved. I think something should be mentioned about the event, but it should not be given excessive weight. Jwesley₇₈ 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. I am in favor of reverting to the version of 21:59, 16 November 2009 by Jwesley78. PAR (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the section should go. Also, as the proponents of including some mention seem to acknowledge that Beck initiated this incident and that his charges of Maoist her-worship are false, (1) why are you comfortable including a deliberate smear campaign and (2) if you are, then are you comfortable labeling it as such?Jimintheatl (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It should be included in the encyclopedia for the same reasons that Dunn's attacks on Fox News should be (and are) included. These are notable events during her tenure that might also be called "smears" (depending on one's POV). The fact that a certain action is called (or, in fact is) a smear, does not excluded it from being mentioned in Wikipedia. These attacks happened, are notable, and can be presented in a neutral way. Of course, it would not be appropriate for any Wikipedia article to explicitly call an action a "smear" (i.e., POV), unless perhaps it was quoting a reliable source. Jwesley₇₈ 14:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. That dog won't hunt. That Fox has a conservative bias is not a particularly new or controversial point of view. It's not comparable to Beck's claim that Dunn "worships" her "hero" Mao, which is how Beck/Fox were pushing the story; otherwise, merely quoting Mao is not particularly significant.Jimintheatl (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Jimintheatl, I'm not sure what your trying to say here. The story was even covered by Huffington Post and many other news outlets. Go looking for it. You'll find it everywhere. Just b/c it originated with Beck does not mean it must be ignored (or censored). Jwesley₇₈ 22:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the (ridiculous) claims of "Mao worship", etc., should not be mentioned. IMO, merely stating that Beck criticized her for a "favorite political philosopher" remark, and that Dunn defended that the remark was meant as irony would be sufficient. Jwesley₇₈ 15:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I repeat from above: "Nowhere, I repeat, nowhere, was any mention made of Beck's accusation that Anita Dunn "worships Mao" etc. and rightly so." The question of Maoist hero-worship is irrelevant and information-free, no one wants it included. May I ask why you continue to bring this up? Quoting Mao is not particularly significant, but stating that he is one of her favorite political philosophers obviously is. No one who wishes to include a description of the Mao incident sees Beck as the sole initiator, either, that is a false statement. "Smear campaign" needs to be defined. She made the statement, Beck aired it, along with insults that we do not need to publish, she responded, along with insults we do not need to publish. Are her accusations that Fox News is not a legitimate news source a smear that needs to be eliminated? No, its part of an important PR battle in which Anita Dunn was a major player and we need to cover it. PAR (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the "question" of Mao worship is the crux of the psuedo-controversy. Beck alleged, based on one probably ill-advised quote, that Dunn worshipped Mao. Otherwise. there is no incident/issue/controversy. The core of the controversy is the attempt to portray Dunn as a Maoist. The ievent is notable only because Beck tried to distort it.Jimintheatl (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Regardless of the absurdity of Beck's claim, the controversy happened. We can't ignore it. It was picked up by various news organizations. You can't go back and rewrite history. Jwesley₇₈ 03:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's good that you acknowledge the absurdity of Beck's claim, and thereby concede that the "controversy" was invented by Beck. THAT, if anything, is what I would support including. this was a dishonest smear in retaliation for Dunn's comments about Fox News. Period.Jimintheatl (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, I share your opinion of Beck and his "dishonest" attack on Dunn. Regardless, this article should contain notable events from her tenure, and this *is* a notable event. Prior to this controversy, there were few American who would have even recognized her name. Beck's attack gave the public an awareness of the WHCD that they otherwise would never have had. It is not our place to provide a POV on these events (i.e., dismissing the controversy b/c it was a dishonest attack). Our job as editors is to document the notable events without giving undue weight, presenting the facts in a neutral way. Dunn presented a valid defense for her statement. There is no reason for us to censor this event from her article. Jwesley₇₈ 05:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, much if not most of the coverage you have cited discusses this incident not as a serious controversy, but points out the ridiculousness of Beck's Maoist charge. If this is to be included at all (and it shouldn't be), then the media portrayal of Beck's charge as absurd must be included.Jimintheatl (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You keep declaring that it "*is* a notable event" without ever presenting evidence to demonstrate that. In fact it's never been demonstrated to be notable. In all the links we've seen, exactly two were from an actual news sources and both were about Beck's attacks on her, not about the speech itself. Beck attacks Democrats every day, but we don't add it to their biographies unless it moves beyond Beck and becomes an actual mainstream controversy that affects their life (i.e. Van Jones). As for crying censorship, that's a non-starter, and is generally seen as an argument of last resort in these discussions. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• There was a huge spike in news results for Anita Dunn in October: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22anita+dunn%22&scoring=n&hl=en&ned=us&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=2009/10&as_hdate=2009/10&lnav=hist9

I wonder if something notable happened? ;) Jwesley₇₈ 16:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, a google search has nothing to do with whether this is notable to her biography or not (particularly an unrelated search such as this one). WP:BIO, for instance, specifically states, Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking). It is also specifically listed in the arguments to avoid. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps international coverage is enough to show notability?

• http://www.opinione.it/articolo.php?arg=4&art=86611
• http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,656388-2,00.html
• http://www.loccidentale.it/articolo/obama+dichiara+guerra+a+fox+e+finisce+il+mito+del+presidente+%22super+partes%22.0080357
• http://www.diariodeburgos.es/noticia.cfm/Opini%C3%B3n/20091028/ira/obama/97F5C943-1A64-968D-59230AD305012907

How far do I need to go to show notability? Jwesley₇₈ 16:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't use foreign language references on English wikipedia (and the fact that Fox commentator Charles Krauthammer's opinion has been translated into Italian doesn't have any relevance whatsoever). How far do you need to go? Well, you haven't even started to establish notability, so I would say a lot farther than you have. To be notable to her biography, this specific incident would have to have been extensively covered by third-party reliable news sources and have affected her life in some way (this is a biography, remember). Neither of those are the case. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

More news stories:

• Chicago Tribune "That touched off a small-screen feud. A Fox talk show host, Glenn Beck, aired footage of Dunn addressing a high school graduation ceremony in June and describing Mao Tse-tung and Mother Teresa as two of her "favorite political philosophers.""
• New York Times "Glenn Beck, the Fox commentator, struck back, broadcasting a video of Ms. Dunn delivering a speech in which she called Mao Tse-Tung, the Chinese communist leader, one of her favorite political philosophers – a comment he called “insanity.’’ She said the reference was facetious."
• Wall Street Journal "Anita Dunn, the White House's communications director who has declared war on Fox News, came under scrutiny herself last week when it was discovered she had told an audience that Mao Tse Tung was one of her favorite political philosophers and quoted Mao on how to "fight your war." In her speech last June, after she joined the Obama White House, Ms. Dunn said the "two people I turn to most" were Mother Teresa and Mao Tse-Tung. She barely discussed the late nun, but waxed at length about the lessons Mao had taught her."
• LA Times "That touched off a small-screen feud. A Fox talk show host, Glenn Beck, aired footage of Dunn addressing a high school graduation ceremony in June and describing Mao Tse-tung and Mother Teresa as two of her "favorite political philosophers.""
• USA Today "Dunn said last month. Fox commentator Glenn Beck fired back, airing a video of Dunn calling Chinese communist leader Mao Tse-Tung and Mother Teresa two of her favorite political philosophers. Dunn told CNN that her use of the phrase "favorite political philosophers" was intended as irony."

Do I need to show even more? Jwesley₇₈ 17:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not see why the article should not say something similar to the above news stories. These are the most mainstream of the mainstream news sources. And they present what happened in a neutral way. Jwesley₇₈ 17:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. THe NYTimes and WSJ are Opinion pieces. In any case, any knowledgeable person is expected to know this tidbit about Dunn. Jwesley₇₈ 17:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You pick any prominent U.S. newspaper. I'm sure I can find at least one article that mentions the Anita Dunn/Beck incident. Jwesley₇₈ 17:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading the above, I am beginning to doubt my hunch that the incident was given low coverage by "mainstream media" excluding Fox. Also, declaring that Beck's insults are the main issue here is simply false. The main point is the speech she gave, the general statements about Mao, and specifically the statement that he is one of her favorite political philosophers. The question that a reader will ask is "what did she mean by that?". The question is notable by any number of criteria as demonstrated above. Our job is to give the reader resources to answer that question for themselves without declaring our editorial opinion. PAR (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't read the above; read the actual sources. None of them deal with "the controversy." They note Dunn's resignation, they say Beck attacked her(often adding baselessly). That doesn't equal a notable controversy. And a brief "mention," which is what most sources cited give this, further establishes the lack of a notable controversy. And if PAR is seriously suggesting that we "answer" the question "what did she mean by that?" then any legitimate answer will just inflate this trivial incident to the point where it will overwhelm and dominate the article.Jimintheatl (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"often adding baselessly"? Where is that? I don't see that in any of the articles. It's obviously a notable event. You're appear to be "pretending" to not understand why it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.37.39 (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Every one of the quotes listed above deals with the controversy. I checked the first three quotes, they are verbatim from the article and not out of context. I'll assume the rest are ok. By "controversy" I mean the speech, the video, Beck's criticism/insults and Dunn's response/insults. As for the second part, what I meant by "editorial opinion" was our editorial opinion of what that answer is. So what I am suggesting is that we not answer the question, only provide factual resources in a balanced way so that the readers can pursue the question if they wish. PAR (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• The question I was trying to answer was "notability". Does anyone still contend that the event is not notable? (I can find many more reliable sources that reference the event if anyone still thinks otherwise.) Jwesley₇₈ 15:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)