Talk:Dana Perino/Archive 1

Vandalism

What is this silliness about her lies sounding sexy? I didn't want to take out the line myself Somebody please remove that line —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.61.98.24 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Simple vandalism, but feel free to remove such lines that you see in any article. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 01:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Which KTSC

This comment in the article is ambiguous because there is evidently both a radio and tv station KTSC in Colo. I suspect it's the radio station she worked for but I don't know. "While attending the university, Perino was active on the debate team and with KTSC." RonB52734 18:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Husband

Wonkette has a report of Perino's husband, Peter McMahon, being arrested and spending a day in jail: [1]. The offense seems minor, so my inclination is that it doesn't merit a place in the article, but one could make a case either way.

Apparently he was walking his dog in the park without a leash. An officer of the U.S. Park Police issued him a ticket for $25 for the violation. "'Why don’t you go chase down some squirrels,' McMahon replied to the policeman."

Mouthing off to a cop, when you've been caught dead to rights, isn't a smart move. McMahon followed up by not paying the fine on time, claiming he didn't know where to send the money. "Eventually he went to the Park Police station to pay it in person, but in the meantime the furious cop had sought an arrest warrant over the unpaid citation."

On the bright side, at least he hasn't (yet) been implicated in the D.C. Madam scandal. JamesMLane t c 10:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The citations and arrest would merit inclusion if this article was "Peter McMahon" instead of "Dana Perino." But the offense was relatively minor, so my recommendation is to omit the information. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 15:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I lean that way too. I'm torn, however, because for even the spouse of a very high-ranking White House staffer to be arrested is a fairly unusual occurrence. JamesMLane t c 19:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Italian-American?

Irrelevant! Not needed. She was born in Wyoming. I wonder if she's ever even been to Italy. Kidshare 17:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Italian-American doesn't have anything to do with where you've been. The phrase is sourced. However, I do consider her ethnicicty unimportant and wonder why it's in the lead sentence.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny. She doesn't look Italian.Lestrade (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Timeline

Ms. Perino does seem quite young, so I tried to track her career.

Sorry for sounding like a dork, but...

- She was in DC starting Nov 2001

- before that, she was in San Diego for three years, so that starts roughly Nov. 1998

- before that, she was in England for a year, so roughly Nov. 1997

- before that, she was Press Secretary for Rep. Schaefer for "nearly four years", so I'll estimate like 3 and a half. so that would be what? like Summer 1994?

- before that, she was staff assistant for Rep. McInnis, so let's say early 1994, or earlier.

so, how did that happen if she graduated undergrad in 1994? and went grad school at U. Illinois afterward. Presuming grad school only took one year, she would've graduated in 1995 and the earliest she could've arrived in DC was Summer 1995. It's a really minor detail, but it kinda nags at me. the overlap is only like one and a half years. not that i think she fudged her resume or anything. she seems very likeable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.26.182 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wondered how she could fit all those things into the last 13 years, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.34.191 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Physically appears older than her stated age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.65.21 (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Breitbart.com

[2] she will replace Mr. Snow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emesee (talk • contribs) 01:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal Life Section

The "Personal Life" section of the article seems quite trivial and unnecessary, especially given the present scope of the article as a political biography (particularly the part about her dog). Drouk1556 (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Bay of Pigs

This issue has little notability, in my opinion, and appears to violate the spirit of WP:BLP which states:

Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. [emphasis mine]

Admittedly, it's funny to see her make such a blunder but it doesn't allow us to infer a general ignorance. This is not encyclopedic. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 02:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it will need to become some sort of media sensation for it to be worthy of mention, and I don't see that happening for a variety of reasons. (Natch, because she's hot--I kid, I kid.) MKV (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the other problem with the addition: It is using a primary source (the broadcast) which is discouraged, then deciding that it is notable which raises problems of original research. To include this information requires tertiary sources that found this of note. Keith Olbermann did include it on last night's program but more as a joke than as a swipe at Perino. Even so, I don't think this is encyclopedic in nature. I'm going to go ahead and remove it. If anyone feels this isn't justified, then go ahead and revert me, then come here to discuss the reasons it is notable and verifiable. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? You don't see ignorance of very basic (and recent) American history as being relevant in an encylopedia article about a press secretary for the PRESEDENT OF THE UNTIED STATES? If she doesn't understand what has happened in and around America -- the big stuff, anyway -- how are we to know that she understands the facts she is bringing into the press room today? It certainly IS relevant! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.34.191 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Even with all caps, no, I don't see it as notable. You personally see it as notable but that is your personal POV. It is not up to you or me to determine notability but instead it is left to third party sources to determine notability. As explained, using a primary source and claiming notability is also a violation of no original research. ∴ Therefore | talk 04:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

She was born in '72, for Pete's sake, and she was, we are told, a "political science major", so certainly it betrays a "general ignorance", for someone in her position. It is definitely notable -- info on the incident is why I looked her up on here to begin with, and I doubt I'm the only one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.45.200 (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What the Cuban Missile Crisis incident has to do with her career

For the record, this is the paragraph in dispute:

In 2007, Perino appeared on the radio quiz show Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! known for, in an amusing fashion, embarrassing the guests. Perino told a self-deprecating, humorous anecdote about how she had to ask her husband about the Cuban Missile Crisis after it came up in a press briefing. News reports treated her comments as a moment of levity, noting that she was born ten years after the event.

69.207.244.105‎ argues that the mention of this radio quiz show event belongs as a hallmark of her career and moved it to the Career section. I argue that this is non-notable as it relates to her career but as a compromise, given it directly relates to her time as a contestant on a popular radio show, belongs in the Personal section. All three of the sources treat this as a point of levity. I infer from 69.207.244.105‎, et. al. that they see this as notable because it reflects on the competence of Perino, a non-policy maker/adviser. I argue that it makes no difference what these users believe although, admittedly, plenty of partisan blogs (which are not reliable sources) have made much hay out of this incident but what is important is what the sources make of it. Here is what they make of it:

Appearing on National Public Radio's light-hearted quiz show "Wait, Wait . . . Don't Tell Me," which aired over the weekend, Perino got into the spirit of things....[3] [S]he appeared on NPR’s “Wait Wait … Don’t Tell Me” during a segment that guarantees embarrassment for its well-known guests.... The Chicago Tribune’s Mark Silva — also noted the appearance more as a laugh-in-passing. ... In short, the critical response of Ms. Perino’s [by bloggers] appearance on a comedy show was devoid of any sense of humor whatsoever — a perhaps unsurprising result since most folks on the Web learned of the episode via quotes shorn of the frequent outbursts of laughter and pervasive zaniness.[4] [T]he president's press secretary sometimes plays another role: Comedienne-in-chief.... Perino, utterly candid with her humor on the air, says: "I feel like I'm in school every day."[5]

In summary, if this is to be in her Career, then I believe it should be deleted as a piece of non-notable (as defined by the sources and not by the point-of-view of the editors), unencyclopedic event. As a mention in her Personal Life, it has some interest and should stay. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 18:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is relevant to her career, since the initial question was asked during a press conference, and her job is working press conferences. However, I'd rather see it stay in the Personal Life section than to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.244.105 (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is where my problem lies. Hers is not a policy making nor a policy advising position. If, say, Rumsfield or Wolfowitz made such a blunder, then it would be newsworthy (if and only if you found a reliable source that said so, which in this case you haven't). Perino is a communications major and the position of Press Secretary, if I may quote Wikipedia, "Responsibilities center on collecting information about what is happening inside the Administration and around the world, and getting that information to the media in a timely and occasionally accurate fashion." This "gotcha" moment doesn't reflect on her responsibilities and, again, was done in a moment of levity as she participated in the "zany" proceedings. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 14:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm still not convinced. If she had projectile-vomited on the Press Corps during a press briefing, that would be notable and related to her job. Likewise, this notably screw-up on her part, even if not included in her list of duties in the narrowest sense of the word, still happened during a press briefing, and therefore is related to her career. Keep in mind that if she leaves this post soon, it may be one of the more notable events during her tenure. Just leave it in the "career" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.244.105 (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see an analogy between "projectile-vomiting" and her appearance on the quiz show. Nor even if that would be considered an encyclopedic-worthy item. Nor do I accept your point-of-view that this will be a more notable event than others. Nor do the sources (which is the hallmark requirement of Wikipedia) agree with your viewpoint. OK -- I'll make a request, then, for a third opinion so we can get this resolved. ∴ Therefore | talk 16:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

OK -- I've made a formal request for a third option at WP:3O. Possibly we can get an opinion whether this is even appropriate for the page at all per Talk:Dana Perino#Bay of Pigs. ∴ Therefore | talk 16:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.244.105 (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

The content is notable, as it was covered in several reliable sources. Although this isn't covered in policy or guidelines, WP:BLP career sections should only cover areas that are very closely related to their careers. Perhaps if she were in a position directly related to the armed forces (United States Secretary of War for example) or if she were the press secretary during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But since neither is true, I'd suggest that it be moved to the personal section. Justin ^chat 06:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Two points about the Third Opinion: First, we don't have a Sect'y of War anymore; it's a Sect'y of Defense. Second, public ignorance of major events in American history is only relevant to the career of a policy-maker, not someone who is supposed to be intelligent enough to be the president's liason to the American people (through press briefings, that is)? She initially fumbled over the Bay of Pigs while in her official capacity in a press briefing. The NPR game show side of it is only the follow-up. What if it became clear in a W.H. press briefing that she had never heard of Watergate? Or didn't know that the Constitution had ever been amended? Or thought that the space shuttle had once flown to the moon? At what point, exactly, would the bar be set too low and merit reference in a Wikipedia profile of her career? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.34.191 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The United States Secretary of War comment was a very subtle joke, perhaps too subtle. Regardless, ignorance of an event that occurred when the person was 10 is certainly relevant to a policy-maker, but I fail to see how an adviser for current media-issues should be subject to the same scrutiny. Perhaps you could even argue anyone with a History degree should at least know the basics. But Dana Perino is a Press Secretary with a degree in Mass Communications.

To answer your question, the placement is a bit arbitrary. Had she said she wasn't aware of World War II that's certainly a career note. That said, I'm willing to bet the masses know far more about World War II than the Cuban Missile Crisis, even though the latter is clearly more recent. However, to turn the tables, at what point is lack of knowledge not notable? If she hadn't known the outcome of the Battle of Fort Hindman would that be notable? If she hadn't known where the Battle of Chickamauga took place, is that notable?

Concerns like this have to be somewhat arbitrary, or articles would be full of useless information about what living persons don't know. In this case, it's inarguably notable, but certainly not in her career. Justin ^chat 20:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Addressed to 70.225.34.191: Could you please povide a reliable source that indicates she "fumbled" at the press conference? According to the article's references, she deferred answering the question directly, rightly so. Possibly "fumbled" is your take? I don't know. Also, to clarify, Perino wasn't ten when the Cuban Missle Crisis occurred, she was born ten years after. For the record, Athaenara concurs with Justin ^chat's opinion.[6] ∴ Therefore | talk 21:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, "fumbled" is my own loaded term. But the larger point -- she seemed incapable of or unwilling to respond to the Cuban Missile Crisis, and soon thereafter revealed (jokingly, she now claims) that she did not know much about the CMC -- stands. As for Justin's point about Perino being born after the CMC and not being a history major: that's really pretty irrelevant. Who says that we should expect well-paid, public representatives of the Executive branch to be aware only of those major events in American history which occurred during their own life times? Anything that occurred before I was born doesn't matter, in other words? It has no bearing on, no connection to, what might be going on today? (And no, those aren't your words, but that is, I'd argue, the implication of what you've suggested.) The CMC involved a nuclear show-down between the U.S. and the world's other great superpower at the time. It had the potential to directly affect many people still alive today, and it's referenced frequently in conversations and books read by well-educated individuals today...much, much more frequently than, say, the Battle of Chickamauga (Can everyone on the street give a detailed account of the CMC? Of course not. But we're talking about the spokesperson for the president of the United States, for Pete's sake.) And if you're willing to say Perino's ignorance is due to her being a mass comm major instead of a history major, does that mean that only a mathematics major should be able to tell you that 27 X 4 = 108? Surely mass comm majors can reasonably be expected to have a basic familiarity with major (and recent!) events in United States history....especially if they dare take a job as the spokesperson for the President. I am sad (though not, I suppose, surprised) to see that the bar has been set so low. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.34.191 (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the actual point here: This isn't the forum to debate her merits or lack thereof -- that is why God made blogs, forums and newsgroups (remember them?). Come up with a reliable source who either criticized her for ducking the question after the news briefing (hint: there are none -- this was a non-story) or who criticized her for her appearance on the quiz show. That is the only issue here: what do the sources say. Please read up at WP:Verifiability:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.[emphasis from source]

You have a clear point of view as do I and may, in fact, coincide. But the principles of Wikipedia insist that we table those POVs and act as editors of an encyclopedia which requires WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. This is particularly so for a WP:BLP. ∴ Therefore | talk 02:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I may not (and don't) agree with her politics, and may (and do) find the gaffe amusing, but the event was a non-issue in the press. If you have impassioned feelings about this please publish them in a forum which doesn't have wikipedia's stringent POV guidelines. Thanks. MKV (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone in that position who is unaware of what the Cuban Missile Crisis is, should be fired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.42.235 (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a gaffe, it was an anecdote. This is non-notable, the "Gaffe" section is grammatically atrocious and the whole mess should be deleted in favor of some relevant information or that same information presented in a relevant manner. 71.191.206.244 (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Mike Kinsley famously defined a gaffe in Washington as "an accidental, inadvertent moment of truth-telling." Well, Perino's anecdote was clearly intentionally told, so you are right on that point. However, I'd argue that there was a gaffe committed - by telling the anecdote she unintentionally revealed the disturbing truth of the depth of her historical and political ignorance. --Wormcast (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Alleged false statements

I reverted this:

On March 29, 2007 Dana Perino falsely stated that the United States was invited to stay in Iraq even though there were 150,000 occupying troops within the country. She has received much criticism for this comment as well as a comment in October of 2007 that global warming could help save people because their was documumented proof people have died because of the cold. View both press releases below.

150,000 troop press release - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/03/mil-070329-whitehouseb01.htm global warming press release - http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071024-8.html

entered by 129.237.49.123 because they are unsourced POV characterizations of discouraged primary sources. The use of the unsourced "She has received much criticism" violated the guideline to avoid using weasel words. Both of these statements violate WP:BLP, requiring their immediate reversal. ∴ Therefore | talk 02:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, the editor is free to re-add this as long as it is written in a neutral tone of voice, attributing the criticisms, such as, "The Washington Post criticized...." and including balancing opinions. ∴ Therefore | talk 02:41, 21 December 2007 (U

Her office Censored Climate Science, in regards to anthropogenic climate forcing

This is direct from the house oversight comitee websight. Her role before becoming press secretary was as the liason with the CEQ and the CEQ was the cheif censor in this issue and with her and Karl Rove at the helm represented direct white house involvement in censoring science. Somethin she took part in and then as press secratary has continued to engage in, as with her atempt to stifle acusations (proven true) that the CDC had its cognressional testimoney edited to leave out all potential health hazzards caused by climate change in favore of speaking of health benefits instead, which was not the topic at hand. As this represents the bulk of her qualification for her current position, and as she is also named in two books on this issue, Censoring Science, and The Price of Loyalty. Writen by acounts from James Hanson at NASA and Bush's first Treasury Secratary who saw his dept. used to censor science from NOOA and NASA as well as the CDC, and NIH. Including editing congressional testimoney of scientists to reflect stated white house policy. This is highly unusual and represents the first time in the fifty years of NASA that sceintists were ever barred from publishing thier work. The following is the summary of the house findings. As such I beleive it warrants mention in the passage of this article relating to her service as deputy press secretary and white house environmental liason. I wont post unless you think it advisable.

For the past 16 months, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been investigating allegations of political interference with government climate change science under the Bush Administration. During the course of this investigation, the Committee obtained over 27,000 pages of documents from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Commerce Department, held two investigative hearings, and deposed or interviewed key officials. Much of the information made available to the Committee has never been publicly disclosed.

This report presents the findings of the Committee’s investigation. The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.

In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute developed an internal “Communications Action Plan” that stated: “Victory will be achieved when … average citizens ‘understand’ uncertainties in climate science … [and] recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’” The Bush Administration has acted as if the oil industry’s communications plan were its mission statement. White House officials and political appointees in the agencies censored congressional testimony on the causes and impacts of global warming, controlled media access to government climate scientists, and edited federal scientific reports to inject unwarranted uncertainty into discussions of climate change and to minimize the threat to the environment and the economy.

The White House Censored Climate Change Scientists The White House exerted unusual control over the public statements of federal scientists on climate change issues. It was standard practice for media requests to speak with federal scientists on climate change matters to be sent to CEQ for White House approval. By controlling which government scientists could respond to media inquiries, the White House suppressed dissemination of scientific views that could conflict with Administration policies. The White House also edited congressional testimony regarding the science of climate change.

Former CEQ Chief of Staff Philip Cooney told the Committee: “Our communications people would render a view as to whether someone should give an interview or not and who it should be.” According to Kent Laborde, a career public affairs officer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, media requests related to climate change issues were handled differently from other requests because “I would have to route media inquires through CEQ.” This practice was particularly evident after Hurricane Katrina. Mr. Laborde was asked, “Did the White House and the Department of Commerce not want scientists who believed that climate change was increasing hurricane activity talking with the press?” He responded: “There was a consistent approach that might have indicated that.”

White House officials and agency political appointees also altered congressional testimony regarding the science of climate change. The changes to the recent climate change testimony of Dr. Julie Gerberding, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have received considerable attention. A year earlier, when Dr. Thomas Karl, the Director of National Climatic Data Center, appeared before the House Oversight Committee, his testimony was also heavily edited by both White House officials and political appointees at the Commerce Department. He was not allowed to say in his written testimony that “modern climate change is dominated by human influences,” that “we are venturing into the unknown territory with changes in climate,” or that “it is very likely (>95 percent probability) that humans are largely responsible for many of the observed changes in climate.” His assertion that global warming “is playing” a role in increased hurricane intensity became “may play.”

The White House Extensively Edited Climate Change Reports There was a systematic White House effort to minimize the significance of climate change by editing climate change reports. CEQ Chief of Staff Phil Cooney and other CEQ officials made at least 294 edits to the Administration’s Strategic Plan of the Climate Change Science Program to exaggerate or emphasize scientific uncertainties or to deemphasize or diminish the importance of the human role in global warming.

The White House insisted on edits to EPA’s draft Report on the Environment that were so extreme that the EPA Administrator opted to eliminate the climate change section of the report —Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielCanada (talk • contribs) 21:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)