Talk:Kayleigh McEnany

Oxford education specifics?

Any clarifications on Kayleigh's claim to have spent a year abroad at Oxford? I studied at St. Edmunds Hall during my junior year through a private program, and there are no academic prerequisites for obtaining these positions. I do not include this on my CV for this reason. Teddy Hall is a minor college, often chosen for exchange students for this reason. I am concerned that this information is misleading and conflates Ms. McEnany's educational credentials. Alanrobts (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Please engage in no WP:OR. Here is the title of the British source: Kayleigh McEnany, the Oxford alumna who is Trump’s new media warrior. XavierItzm (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Age?

Hi, I just wanted to know what her birthdate was, to get an idea of how old she is (and whether she can run for office yet). Thanks.2602:306:CD9B:E9A0:84A3:167A:69E:7E7E (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I have her listed at 18 April 1988. Rothorpe (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I've seen other Wikipedia articles where that sourcing was not accepted. For example, she could have tweeted that on a day other than when it took place. I think better sourcing is needed. In any event, that source is "good" (if it is) for day, but what about year? XavierItzm (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

To address this, I've added a source for the DOB: The NYT. XavierItzm (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy of her remarks

Apparently this person often says things when interviewed that ... cannot be verified. Isn't this an important fact that ought to be in the article?2600:1700:E1C0:F340:3CB7:101A:FA49:A063 (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but even worse, sometimes she makes statement that can be verified as patently false. This needs to be mentioned in the article - just as Donald Trumps lies are highlighted on wiki in a page called Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. Pinklydo (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you guys getting paid for posting all these bs? StargazerAW (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Supposed to keep it civil - Wikipedia:Covfefeing - can you do that? - 50.80.242.31 (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

For a Wikipedia article, this one is almost ideologically neutral. Sure, Wikipedia is a pro-Left source, but despite this obvious saturation in leftist ideology, this is almost a fair article and doesn't engage in the usual Orange Man Bad nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Moving "Publications" to "Career" section

Would it be more feasible to add 'Publications' as part of the 'Career' section of the article, since it is perhaps too short at the moment for its own section? Also, I've added McEnany's Twitter account in External Links as the social networking site has become a megaphone during this presidential administration and she seems to be most active there. HSE001 (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this entry biased?

Entry seems tilted in favor of the Trump narrative, such as McEnany "correctly" noting that Trump was taken out of context on his comments about disinfectant and the Coronavirus. I do not think this is true and flagged that section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:13A0:F7D0:B469:AE08:242E:2067 (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Really? You're going to say this article is biased FOR Trump? At least as of the current version I'm seeing on May 2 after literally dozens of edits earlier today, this entry leans anti-Trump. Sad, really. Asc85 (talk)

One of the most anti-Trump articles out there and he says it is tilted to support Trump. Wikipedia is leftist propaganda. StargazerAW (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately Trump tells lies, and McEnany repeats them. If this article reports those lies, that does not make the article anti-Trump. It means the article is an accurate and objective description of what these liars are saying. Pinklydo (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The democrats are the worst of all liars. They have been lying to us about Trump for years and they have been caught red handed many times but the media goes silent after that and so does Wikipedia. This platform has become bs. StargazerAW (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

This particular sentence seems biased: "When Trump was criticized by experts for suggesting at a press conference that the coronavirus could be treated with disinfectant injections, McEnany said that the president's remarks were simply taken out of context."

His remarks were taken out of context. It was a discussion about possible future research and he was referring to another guy who just spoke, not a suggestion that people should be injected with disinfectants. I watched it myself. I can't post the YouTube link, but that speaker starts at 21:47 in the PBS NewsHour video of the April 23 press conference, and Trump's follow-up comments are at roughly 28 minutes. Wredlich (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2020

You cannot use the fraudcaster CNN as a source for data. She did not lie. If you make such a claim, you need to give an example. 82.11.25.162 (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, see WP:RSP. CNN is generally reliable. Second, I don't know what the version you saw says, but the current version does give an example 'She said Robert Mueller's investigation led to a "complete and total exoneration" of the President, something Mueller explicitly said he was not doing' Nil Einne (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

She lies all the time. She said: "We will not see diseases like the coronavirus come here...” That proved to be total BS. Pinklydo (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Added a ref list template because the section contains a reference. Don't think the reference should be here, it meanders into an off-topic area, but if we have a reference, we need a ref list. If an editor wants to remove the ref list, please remove the reference as well. Thank you. EdJF (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

References

CNN is not reliable, but a propaganda outlet. Is it not obvious that whatever the current president does, CNN will bad-mouth it? Since USA has become extremely polarized politically, it has become very difficult to find any objective reliable news outlet. To have a degree of reliability would mean that news outlets on both sides of the cultural war say the same thing. (PeacePeace (talk) 05:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC))

Neutrality dispution

This article was re-structured completely over the last few days. Now the introductory section of the article reads with bias. Please add a mixed balance of reliable sources from left, moderate, and right-leaning outlets and re-write the top section with an encyclopedic tone and not like an op-ed. HSE001 (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Can't we just use reliable sources without caring which way they lean? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is one of the most visited sites and these types of articles get millions of traffic visits a month, even from journalists and bloggers. We want readers to view the information in the encyclopedia as credible and neutral because not everyone will interpret what they read similarly. In the case of this article, all the wrongful edits were based only on speculation from one-side. While the sources may be reliable, when relevant, you must take into account what is being said, including if the statements are politically-charged. HSE001 (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Statements of fact are not politically charged - if they are charged with anything, they are charged with the truth. It is a fact that In 2019, she said on CNN that she doesn't believe Trump tells lies.

There are no "statements of fact" in the edits made, they are assumptions made primarily by reports of left-leaning news outlets. There is a past history of false assumptions made in all of the mass media and in government. And because of that, as an encyclopedia, we must add information that levers on both sides to promote a neutral tone. Since the subject is of a very high authority capacity, perhaps of a more significant capacity than the authors of the sources, we must keep the information in the encyclopedia as balanced as possible. I don't see any flow of reliable sources aside from left-leaning outlets who have reported on this, so the past edits made are not appropriate at this moment in time. HSE001 (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not an assumption that she said she believes Trump doesn't lie. It is a documented fact. Watch the clip for yourself. Pinklydo (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The role of White House Press Secretary is to rack up information from the entire executive branch of the United States government administration, not just from the President of the United States. What you are referring to is directed toward another subject and not of this article. On Wikipedia, notability, and vice versa, is not inheritable. If anything, these assumptions are welcome to be added in the article space of the actual subject, which is the 45th President of the United States, if credible. Also, the HuffPost is a left-leaning outlet with the majority of their published work on politics considered politically-charged content. HSE001 (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed the references because without a "ref list" template, the references interfere with the next section (RfC). If we add references on the talk page then we need a ref list - if we're not going to have a ref list, then let's not have the references. But please keep in mind, removing the "ref list" template doesn't remove the references, they're just left dangling EdJF (talk)

Thank you for removing the biased edits. HSE001 (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Proper characterization of McEnany's career

The article has used multiple headers to describe McEnany's career after graduating from law school and prior to becoming White House Press Secretary. McEnany's current section header reads "Republican political strategist"

Survey of comments: Should the header title remain "Republican political strategist"? Please respond with "Keep"; "Revert"; or "Other" (with recommendation for header) EdJF (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep the current header as "Republican political strategist" The previous header was "Role as Trump surrogate". While some members of the media may have described her in this manner, the title of "surrogate" is not an encyclopedic entry as it fails WP:NPOV. People in similar roles have not been described as "surrogates". Example: George Stephanopoulos who worked on Democratic party campaigns, and later became White House de facto press secretaruy for President Clinton after working on his campaign. His bio uses neutral, non-POV terms such as "1988 U.S. presidential election" and "Clinton administration". Another example is Donna Brazile who has worked on multiple democratic party campaigns, served as DNC chair, and has been employed as a media analyst. Her bio list most of these under the header "Political strategist" which is the current header for McEnany. EdJF (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Revert: There is a big difference between a strategist and a surrogate. A strategist comes up with stuff - they strategize. McEnany doesn't come up with anything. She simply repeats whatever Trumps says. An online definition of surrogate is: "A substitute, especially a person deputizing for another in a specific role or office. The Cambridge online defines it as "Replacing someone else". That's what McEnany is - a substitute, or replacement Trump when speaking to the media. Pinklydo (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep the current header as "Republican political strategist", per WP:NPOV, people. XavierItzm (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Revert: Surrogate is an accurate description. Those editors proposing 'keep' have not explained why they think the term 'surrogate' is not neutral. There is no comparison with someone like Donna Brazile who actually was a campaign manager and strategist. McEnany has never performed such roles. Notagainst (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Pinkylydo and Notagainst have disappeared upon notification of the sockpuppet investigation concerning them. It looks like one is a puppet and the other, the master account, will probably be banned, so unless there are other !votes to Revert... 73.149.246.232 (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

"In the weeks following her remarks, as the virus continued to spread, and thousands of Americans died, McEnany was criticized for these comments."

This is a BLP violation, attempting to create a link between McEnany and the death toll from COVID-19 is a violation of WP:NPOV, specifically the phrase, "and thousands of Americans died". I've reworded it to the best of my ability to maintain a neutral tone. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly which aspect of WP:BLP do you think it violates...? The statement that thousands of Americans have died is a fact (79,341 as at 11 May). Facts are facts and politically neutral. There is no breach either of NPOV or BLP. Pinklydo (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

No matter your personal opinion do not reverse the revert like you just have, you do not have consensus. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither do you. Pinklydo (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand, I'm not looking to include anything in the article. I don't need consensus to take objection with content you are including in the article, however, and since you have no consensus for that content, I am allowed to revert it and take objection to the content's inclusion. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. Whether you want to include something or remove something - if contested - still requires consensus. You have already been warned for disruptive editing by two other editors here so please pull your head in. Pinklydo (talk) 05:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be a new user so I'll assume this was unintentional, but conduct like that is known as a personal attack, and looking into the user's talk page to dig for a case to build is unconstructive to the point you're trying to make and possibly even harms it as a result. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Linking McEnany's comments to COVID-19 deaths in the same sentence is editorializing and a BLP violation. It is also inconsistent with other articles, example Bill de Blasio who, as late as 11 March 2020 was downplaying the dangers of COVID-19 and telling New Yorkers to go about their lives. Note that the de Blasio article doesn't say "In the weeks following his remarks, as thousands of New Yorkers died, de Blasio was criticized for his comments." That would be a BLP violation by suggesting that their deaths were due to de Blasio's comments. As a point of reference, de Blasio's comments downplaying COVID-19 (11 March) were made three weeks after McEnany's comments (25 February); point being that many public figures made comments that proved to be unfortunate. We should characterize their comments in a neutral, unbiased manner. EdJF (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The lede

The lede needs to contain key information about her. The fact that she is willing to repeat Trump's lies is the essence of who she is and why Trump appointed her. That's why her willingness to lie, as documented by numerous sources, belongs in the lede. These are documented facts and facts are neutral. They don't have a POV. Pinklydo (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

See WP:OWN. This is a BLP, not your personal attack blog. Editorials and speculations on "the essence of who she is" and "why Trump appointed her" are obviously off-topic as is egregious slanting of the lede, section headings and article information.

You have very recently made in excess of 100 edits to this article and its talk page, following a similar spree on Jared Kushner. The edits and especially the explanations read like deliberate trolling (my favorite is this one but these are also good [1] [2] ). Whether troll or anti-Trump SPA, you have taken over and are disrupting the article. There are obvious remedies for this but the simplest is that you stop vandalizing the article and let people more inclined toward NPOV return it to a more balanced state. Please do not also take over the talk page to dispute this. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I rather thought the purpose of the Talk page was to resolve disputes. Did I get that wrong as well? Pinklydo (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"Please do not also take over the talk page to dispute this." 73.149.246.232 (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Now you are operating as if you WP:OWN the page. If all you can do is repeat yourself and you are unable to engage in constructive dialogue, consensus building is not possible. Pinklydo (talk) 05:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Pinklydo POV mass edits should be reverted en masse, not argued one by one.

Over 100 edits, all from severe POV, in a period of about 10 days, effectively taking over and slanting the article and leading to ongoing talk page conflicts and edit wars. Now the same user appears to be sockpuppeting to take over the talk page.

It wastes time and misses the point to argue these extremist edits one by one, going as far as an RfC above. One should not be able to take over a page through a massive number of tendentious edits, have 20 percent eventually questioned on talk or in edit wars, the disruptive editor demanding consensus and detailed justification for each attempt to restore the prior level of NPOV, with the end result that the other 80 percent of the hostile takeover stays in place.

I suggest that all the recent edits be undone and we go to SPI. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I took the liberty of deleting some BLP violations, tarring McEnany, as suggesting she is a liar.

Saying that "some have said" John Doe is a liar, is an oblique way of tarring somebody's reputation as a liar. (PeacePeace (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC))

The material you removed are not violations of BLP. McEnany repeats Trump's well documented lies (on wikipedia) and is therefore responsible for her own reputation. This article describes her background and her achievements but cannot ignore the fact that she has had to repeat Trump's lies to get where she is. Notagainst (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

This looks like deliberate high-grade trolling. Sockpuppets don't generally try to make it obvious by rewriting each other's talk page comments and article edits. Some of the edit explanations are small masterpieces (see list in "the lede" section above; the one about McEnany not being a Christian is priceless). I salute your sense of online humor, but this is disruptive editing and your 100+ edits need to be reverted after your topic (or SP) ban goes into effect. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be a sock puppet issue vice trolling, but maybe some of both … and on both sides. EdJF (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

very fine people

If you read the source article[3], it focuses on the part of the quote that raises eyebrows: "you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides."

It is this source that chose to use just the end of the quote, not the bland beginning. Choosing to include what our source excluded is... hard to justify, don't you think? Please offer your justification so that we can agree on what to keep. FollowTheSources (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

In terms of length and scope, the current quote seems about right: "…some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides." We can add a sentence to the effect “Trump was criticized by some in the media for creating a moral equivalence between the two sides of the event.” Or words to that effect. McEnany’s comment should remain since the article is about her. EdJF (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Our sources chose to focus only on the controversial part, and so should we. FollowTheSources (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The politifact link was provided to show that the original quote, no matter what the news source, was intentionally shortened and thus slanted. The way the segment is written now has removed all links thus making it opinion and is effectively saying everyone there was either a "white supremacist" or a "counter protester". This implicitly implies one side was entirely virtuous and the other was entirely vile. There were protesters there who didn't like the statues being removed but did not have a white supremacist agenda, and there were those on the "counter protester" side who were far left wing groups like Antifa that served as agents provocateurs. Trump's point was that to paint all the people there with a broad brush was hasty. Albeit, it was not stated elegantly.

To accurately judge her assessment of the president's statement, the original quote, in it's entirety should be restored. Otherwise, this violates all journalistic ethics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:4380:230:D8CC:9264:49C5:36F1 (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2020

The following should be removed or seriously reworked: "Without hesitation, McEnany replied: 'I will never lie to you. You have my word on that.' McEnany then proceeded to make a number of false claims in the same briefing. On the subject of Trump's responses to the coronavirus pandemic, she stated: 'This president has always sided on the side of data'. In response to allegations of Trump's sexual misconduct, McEnany said: 'He has always told the truth'."

There are several problems here. By definition, a lie is the intentional misrepresentation of facts. Even the CNN article cited as a source for the argument that McEnany made "false claims" refuses to say McEnany lied and posits that what it says are her false statements could have been "inadvertent." Beyond that, it is highly debatable whether any of her statements were even false. It is the job of a press secretary to argue the administration's interpretation of events. Saying that what McEnany said was "false" basically comes down to arguing, "McEnany's interpretation of events differs from the opinion of some guy at CNN, so McEnany is a liar."

This entry on Kayleigh McEnany is currently extremely biased and politicized. Please change it so that it is fair. 216.186.217.118 (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The current text reflects the reliable sources, so, no, we're not going to change it. Neutrality^talk 15:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2020

In Section titled Republican political strategist, change "Despite Trump's well-documented history of false and misleading statements" to "Despite allegations of President Trump's false and misleading statements" This change is more neutral, especially since the linked page itself is under question by Wiki for neutrality. Tavennerfb (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

In section titled White House press secretary, request change "McEnany then proceeded to make a number of false claims in the same briefing" to "McEnany then proceeded to make statements that CNN said were "laden with inaccuracies" and The Guardian characterized as "dodgy information" in the same briefing." The requested change is more accurate in that both referenced sources' text used the quoted language rather than the more salient "false" language merely posed as questions in their headlines. Tavennerfb (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

No, the cited sources here directly supports the content. We also don't give in-text attribution for straightforward facts. Neutrality^talk 21:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)