Talk:Katrina Pierson

Edits of this date

I did a series of edits today, to better structure the article, so that content was in appropriate sections, and so that sections could easily be expanded as more material became available. In doing so I marked all sentences where the source of the content being presented is unclear, either because of absence of an inline citation, or because of the distance between the sentence and the nearest inline citation led to ambiguity. (If you know a sentence is drawn from one of the citations appearing, by all means return it to the text. Otherwise, this content is suspect, until sources are found.)

I doing the read through and copyedit I also have made several professorial judgment calls, which I will list here:

• Early marriage and birth of son were moved to personal life, rather than Early life and education.
• I removed the age of her mother that appeared, because no corresponding datum appears for the father, so, standing alone, it is potentially interpretable as sexist/pejorative. (The fact that a source indicates one and not the other does not behoove us to include it if we cannot provide both.)
• I moved the citation supplied for DOB here, as unacceptable by WP:VERIFY standards, as there is no way to trace the image to a published source, and so no way to ascertain with certainty that this is actually an image of the subject. ("Just trust us here" is not a WP policy/standard.) Besides being non-standard, it is unnecessarily prejudicial to reader perception. (I have never seen another case at WP where such a source is used to establish DOB.) The citation is left here, for further discussion.

Please discuss any need to change these edits back here, with discussion at least as thoughtful as what has been presented. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with you that including her mother's age would appear sexist: children are typically birthed by their mothers, not their fathers, and, when born out of wedlock, are usually retained by the mothers, as in this case, where Ms. Pierson's mother gave her up for adoption—only a possibility with an absent father. Ergo, the birthing parent's youth is a better indicator of potential hardship than the fertilizing parent's youth. Furthermore, removing this fact makes the reader even less likely to relate to or sympathize with Ms. Pierson. But it's arguably irrelevant, and I'm not going to protest.

You're undeniably right about the mugshot citation being both unverifiable and highly prejudicial: I'm embarrassed I'd added it. I wanted a source for her birthdate; she seemed to "own" her brush with the law (I imagine I would too if I were in her shoes); and I didn't stop to think. Sorry about that. Anyway, one of our existing citations (Jeffers) provides her birth name and, by inference, her approximate year of birth (stating that she turned 20 in 1997).

Also, I undid some of your change to the description of the "pure breed" tweet: in my view, "national origins" flows better than "nation's [sic] of origin," and it's unnecessary (because we recite verbatim the whole tweet) and a little misleading (because the tweet would have offended many even if she'd written it without the "pure breeds" phrase) to say that it "included the expression 'pure breeds.'" I think "racially-charged tweet" covers the reasons for its offensiveness. Do you think so?

Anyway, very nice work, Prof, and nice explanation and defense of your edits as well. Thank you. :)

—  Rebbing  talk  08:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

"Pure breeds" tweet and reaction

@Rebbing: regarding the recent edits - there is too much attribution to these Tweets and tangential events. I think there is a way to trim these sections down, as they are non-vital. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Dalton. Thank you for raising this issue. My reasoning for keeping the current version is this:

1. The tweet generated a significant amount of controversy. (If you'd like, I could produce more than the two references used in the article.) It's not mere trivia, and it's appropriate for the article to cover it.
2. The tweet is more noteworthy than much of the material in the article, yet our coverage of it is relatively concise. For instance, in § Association with Trump 2016, we relate at length the subject's meetings with Mr. Trump (53 words), we mention her wearing a necklace made of bullets on television; we quote her views on Islam (20 words), and we've got 96 words about an incident where she spoke about as Mr. Trump's media spokeswoman about his views on monitoring mosques. By contrast, the entire "pure breeds" incident is related in 107 words.
3. As the interpretation of the tweet is highly controversial and the tweet itself is a mere 16 words long, quoting the tweet and allowing readers to make their own judgments is desirable from a neutrality standpoint.
4. Assuming the controversy is relevant, Ms. Pierson's response and explanation is also relevant, and it's also only fair that her explanation be mentioned.
5. As the adequacy and plausibility of her explanation could reasonably be disputed, and it's not excessively long (47 words in its entirety), reproducing it verbatim for readers to assess for themselves is (1) more informative than merely saying that she responded (leaving a curious reader to have to read the source to see her explanation) and (2) more neutral than noting a secondary source's description of her explanation.

Thoughts?  Rebbing  02:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This is WAY too much weight for a Tweet. Its approximately a sixth of the article's entire length. Trim it down or its going. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

To explain it in other terms: 1). its not relevant to the article, 2). it is WP:UNDUE, 3). it is not notable to her career ad everything that makes her worthy of having a Wikipedia page. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is not an excuse for removing unflattering information. The article is short, so any one piece of information is going to comprise substantial fraction of the total. The entire coverage of the tweet runs to 107 words. If you insist on removing it, I suggest you excise the entire paragraph. Also, this time, please remember to preview before you submit; you'll want to delete the refs named Bowden, Chasmar, Feinberg, and Pierson (2012). Examine the references section for any warnings.  Rebbing  04:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You're probably right; I went ahead and cut it.  Rebbing  04:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Rise in prominence

On TV, she represents Trump and does well. Also, FYI: this liberally-written article (opinion-wise) may contain leads to interesting information to WP readers, if verified. Otherwise, it is just gossip, much of it. Other items are actually factual, the spin is not.[1] Article title: "Election 2016: 12 Craziest Things About Trump's Spokeswoman Katrina Pierson" -- AstroU (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

Add a children section and an alma mater section. Ralphw (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: Her alma mater is well-supported and arguably infobox material, but our sourcing on her child is pretty scarce, and the fact that she has a child is not, in my view, infobox material. (See the documentation.) Cheers!  Rebbing  18:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Ralphw (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

"Lobbyist" vs. "Activist"

An IP user changed the description of Pierson's occupation from "Tea Party activist and communications consultant" to "Tea Party lobbyist and communications consultant" and in a second paragraph "becoming a activist" to "becoming a lobbyist". The first change is in the unsourced introductory paragraph, the second, in a sentence sourced to a "McClatchy DC" that specifically refers to her as an "activist" and does not use the term "lobbyist". I also looked up "Katrina Pierson" on the databases of registered lobbyists maintained by the US House, the US Senate, and the State of Texas back to 2011. Her name never appeared, though it is certainly possible I could have made a search error.

In American politics "lobbyist" is a word with negative connotations, while "activist" is a word with more positive connotations. I think this change is merely a bit of drive-by political sniping that should be reverted, and I am doing so. Carl Henderson (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Added a gaffes section

Claiming that we invaded Afghanistan under Obama is a notable gaffe — with a cite to the CNN interview. Important that we not fill this section up with anything that we cannot support. Frankly she is erroneous about many things. David Cary Hart (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

And I removed it. There's no indication that this comment received widespread media attention; your view that it was a "notable gaffe" is an opinion, also known as original research. I removed it per our policies forbidding original research and requiring a neutral point of view (especially UNDUE). We used to have much larger coverage of some of her controversies—check out §§ Association with Trump 2016 and Other matters on this revision: we covered the bullet necklace incident, comments about Islam, and the "half breed" tweet—all written neutrally and with reliable sources showing not only that they happened but that they were widely covered. But, even so, some of us felt there was undue weight given to those controversies, and they were removed. Rebbing 22:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be wide spread now, Rebbing.

Esquire, CNN, CBS News judged this statement relevant to the 2016 US presidential election.

• http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-spokesperson-katrina-pierson-blames-obama-for-invading-afghanistan/
• http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/13/politics/katrina-pierson-obama-afghanistan/index.html
• http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a47640/trump-spokesperson-afghanistan-war/

Ncr100 (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. This is all routine coverage and does not merit mention. Cf. NOTNEWS. Rebbing 08:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

This person is primarily notable for being Trump's campaign spokesperson. It's one of the few instances where her interviews have generated third-party reporting. Given the inherent importance of an American presidential campaign and that she was acting in the official capacity on a nation-wide media channel and that it's generating this external news coverage, I think calling it "routine coverage" and invoking NOTNEWS is questionable at best. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

She is one of the most striking examples of the corruption, unhingedness and cold-blooded idiocy at the heart of the Trump movement, and it's not at all surprising that she's been a key spokesperson and organizer for Trump all through these five years, into the 2020 campaign and post-campaign. Given half a chance she will be hired again for a "Trump 2024" campaign. 83.251.167.110 (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Controversial statements

Fine, let's not call them "gaffes". The point is that this Wikipedia article currently lacks information about the events that actually are making people interested in Katrina Pierson. Here's a small sample of the news coverage:

• http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/katrina-pierson-afghanistan-comment
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/15/donald-trumps-top-spokeswoman-katrina-pierson-is-saying-some-very-strange-things-this-month/
• http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Trump-spokeswoman-Katrina-Pierson-We-All-Make-9144719.php
• http://www.salon.com/2016/08/03/katrina_piersons_greatest_hits_an_abridged_timeline_of_the_trump_spokeswomans_crazed_commentary/
• http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/who-is-katrina-pierson/

We don't need six paragraphs about this, but it seems quite appropriate to have at least one. Nor does it have to be a separate section; it could be under the "Trump 2016" section. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Take a look at the coverage of some of her controversial statements in this revision—primarily in §§ Association with Trump 2016 and Other matters. Rebbing 02:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's a more comprehensive in-debt article about her which gives an overall picture (incl. backstory) from June 2016:

• "Katrina Pierson's Scorched-Earth Path To The Top Of Donald Trump's Campaign - The backstory of Trump's most prominent defender."

--TMCk (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's an article that explicitly discusses Pierson and some of her factually incorrect statements.

{{cite news |last=Marcus |first=Ruth |date=August 19, 2016 |title=Trump's Sickening attacks on Clinton's health |publisher=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-sickening-attacks-on-clintons-health/2016/08/19/258351be-662b-11e6-96c0-37533479f3f5_story.html}}

Jason Quinn (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Integrity/bias

This page seems to have little integrity to it. Katrina Pierson has gained significant media attention over her controversial statements. I see that there has been a lot of discussion on the matter, however, it appears that all references to anything she has ever said have been removed. This smells of subjective editing. When a person is know for being controversial, their Wikipedia page should reflect that. Jaydangerx (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)