Talk:Dana Perino

born in 1972?!

is this a fact?! she kinda looks older... i'ma guy who was born in 1970-ies and she looks at least a decade older than me—Preceding unsigned comment added by Topk (talk • contribs) 11:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sign your posts, Topk. Anyway, the fact is that people age at different rates; news people tend to look younger than they are, and political figures tend to look older, aging especially quickly under the limelight of public scrutiny. Julyo (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

So why is not knowing the specifics of the Cuban Missile Crisis a controversy? I personally don't find it the least bit controversial, does anyone else? SpudHawg948 (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC

from the Cuban Missile Crisis: "The crisis ranks with the Berlin Blockade as one of the major confrontations of the Cold War, and is generally regarded, along with the Able Archer 83 incident in 1983, as the moment in which the Cold War came closest to a nuclear war." Pierre Salinger, JFK's press secretary during the CMC, served as a secret intermediary to "back channel talks" that helped resolve the crisis. Reflecting back on that crisis, he said, "If (Soviet Premier Nikita) Kruschev had not pulled out the missiles, we were going to send in troops and bomb Cuba. The Soviet Union would have immediately bombed us."

Kinda what you want the White House Press Secretary to not only know about, but to have studied in detail - it is a (perhaps the) prime example of just how important a role the president's communications officers can play. Wormcast (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that it reflected a lack of knowledge on major Historical events the office of the president was involved in. It also reflected poorly on any comments she made in regards to nuclear proliferation, if she was unaware of the circumstances regarding the most famous instance of nuclear proliferation and intervention in United States history. Ignorance is scandalous and she proved herself to be ignorant. --Bobnozal2 (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say that coordinating the press at an agency where the direct assertion was the White House was using the CEQ to censor climate change studies qualifies as a scandal. --Bobnozal2 (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaffes?

"The President has been looking for Osama Bin Laden since September 12th.” How is that a gaffe? It is fairly obvious that she means Bush has been looking for him since the September 11th attacks. Scottgerard (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Mike Kinsley famously defined a gaffe in Washington as "an accidental, inadvertent moment of truth-telling." In this case, she inadvertently called attention to what the Bush administration has spend quite a bit of effort denying; namely, claims by former counterterrorism officer Richard Clark that the Bush Admin deprioritized the effort to catch Bin Laden that had been in place under the Clinton Admin, and only started it up again in earnest after the 911 disaster --Wormcast (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

future plans

As a Citizen of this great Land, I would so enjoy hearing that Dana Perino would run for President or Vice President. She is clear-minded, well spoken and so intelligent. 68.38.35.243 (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are for the discussion of improvements to the article, please. Lots42 (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"No terrorist attacks"

This is the kind of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name, so I deleted it. This is supposed to be a reasonable, balanced portrait of Ms Perino, but someone has included a trivial thing that is exercising blogs with a particular agenda right now, but will be forgotten in a week, let alone ten years. It is not a defining achievement or failure of her career. It's very much the sort of nonsense that needs to be kept out of our articles, so that they don't devolve into ridiculous ideological hackery. Or at least fall further into it than they already are. And yes, I know it had a source. That's not the point. Grace Note (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Balanced, yes. Which doesn't mean excluding noteable things. Failing to remember 9-11 is noteable in this situation no matter how you look at it. Lots42 (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This entry is incendiary, but above all, false. It is beneath any reputable information source to include it. It is a petty, transparent political attack. Dana Perino and many others have stated numerous times that there was not a terrorist attack on United States soil since 9/11. That is a fact. Additionally, the source for this comical entry comes from the Huffington Post of all places. Not exactly a bipartisan, neutral website, to say the least. This entry should obviously be deleted.--Cmcgone (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not a fact that there were no terrorist attacks after 9/11 on American soil or that took American lives. The Anthrax Attacks, the D.C. Sniper Case, the El All ticket counter shooting, on American soil took lives. Also if you include the simple phrase, "terrorist attacks" that includes attempts, and that would include Richard Reed's failed attempt which was foiled as it was occuring. in the interest of maintaining factual accuracy it should be reinstated to point out it's inaccuracy --Bobnozal2 (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree it should be deleted. I saw the video in question. She made the statement. I altered things the way I did to show a more nuetral presentation of the facts, plus I feel we need a cite for her clarification. Lots42 (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

thats the problem with wikipeedia - too many snotnosed leftists making sniping partisan comments that have nothing to do with the article...GROW UP!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.0.224.79 (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion page is for talking about improvements to the page, please. Lots42 (talk) 11:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The entry is factually true; the evidence is available on video. The real question is whether or not such a statement is noteworthy in a bio piece. If this were a person on the street, this level of ignorance would be unremarkable. Likewise, if this were an article on an artist, an athlete, or any other person notable for something other than US politics, policy, and communication. However, Perino is not such a person; she was communications director for the White House, and has recently been nominated for another important federal post, the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

The charitable explanation for her statement was that she simply got confused (just like Rudy Giuliani and Mary Matalin); this speaks poorly towards her nomination for high office. The more cynically explanation is that she is intentionally spreading propaganda, knowing that most people will not stick around for the fact-check followups. In light of her area of notability and current nominee status, either explanation is significant grounds for inclusion of this remarkable claim. Wormcast (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, except we don't do charitable explanations on Wikipedia. We do noteable nuetrally. Lots42 (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If you believe this entry to be "noteable nuetrally" (did you mean notably neutral?) I suggest you make a like entry on Obama's wiki site as to the number of states he claimed to have visited during his campaign. Fifty-seven I believe it was. Factually true, evidenced on video, and just as outlandish as this entry.

Please forgive me. I was wrong. It was 58 states ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws But you are wrong - neither quote is 'noteable," much less appropriate, for a wikipedia entry. (did you mean "notable?") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmcgone (talk • contribs) 04:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please provide me with a video of this; the President forgetting the number of states is just as noteable as Dana forgetting 9-11. Lots42 (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ask your parents. Not my job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmcgone (talk • contribs) 06:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The is no need for insults. Lots42 (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is only a "remarkable claim" to political partisans attempting to use a respectable website to defame the opposition. It adds nothing to the factual biography of this woman. Rather, it lowers the standards of Wikipedia which thousands of people rely on for information. The poster does a grave disservice to those seeking factual information devoid of political bias. Such posts are better left to political blogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmcgone (talk • contribs) 05:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't either incident nota...appropiate? I still don't understand. P.S. Adding four ~ to the end of your statement will auto-sign it for you and make the talk pages much clearer. Lots42 (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

a good question. Several people favoring the inclusion of both Perino's admission of gross historical ignorance and her massively incorrect claim about terrorism have made substantive arguments for the inclusion. The only arguments offered against inclusion, as far as I can tell, are: (1) it is not a defining achievement or failure of her career. (2) Obama's gaffes are not included in his article. With respect to (1), there is a good deal of space in this article devoted to such biographical trivia as how Perinomet her husband, what school papers she wrote for, etc., which I do not hear being challenged. The events in question are vastly more notable: they resulted in national press attention, and quite likely damaged Perino's credibility. This is notable. With respect to (2), the argument is irrelevant. Go make the case on Obama's page if you think that his misstatement rises to the level of notability. Wormcast (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Perino made no "admission of gross historical ignorance," and your choice of wording in itself ("massively incorrect") exposes your motivation, which is of course to "damage" Perino's credibility due to your bizarre dislike of the woman. Take it to the blogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.252.234 (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you Cmcgone? Lots42 (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

My dear 76.106.252.234 (Cmcgone?):

(1) please take the courtesy to sign your posts.

(2) Please review the guidelines on discussion page indentation.

(3) Please refrain from ad hominem attacks.

(4) Please do not unilaterally delete true, sourced content in the absence of a consensus as to its notability.

(5) Please explain how it is that complete ignorance in a member of the Presidential staff of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the closest humanity has come to extinction since the hunter-gatherer stage does not constitute gross historical ignorance.

(6) Please explain how the omission of 9/11 ,etc. in a recounting of terrorist acts that took place during the Bush term does not constitute a massively incorrect statement.

Looking forward to you actions and answers! Wormcast (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Frank Rich

The Frank Rich reply to Perino...sounds more like it belongs in the Rich page and not here. Lots42 (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Why? The comment was about Perino, properly attributed and sourced to comply with WP:NPOV. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion quotation

I removed this section because it is sourced to Alan Colmes's blog. Blogs are not reliable sources for BLP pages (see WP:BLPSPS. Yes, I know she did say this -- that isn't the issue. What is required is for a reliable source to comment on this statement which would then make it notable. A reliable source is a mainstream publication known for fact checking. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 00:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I through-sourced the Colmes blog to mediamatters in the footnote; and both sources had the original Fox clip. Is RLimbaugh making the point, and Perino then making it, enough to make it notable? I included Limbaugh in the entry. The Deepwater subject itself and the contrarian view/questioning re: the explosion (environmentalist did it?!) are both notable, I think, and if Perino herself is worthy of note, her comment is worthy of note, no? A couple of ideas, in response. Also, I view Colmes and mediamatters as conduits, not commentators, in this regard. Would that help?

I hadn't seen before, and I appreciate, your defense of my earlier (start of the) FRich entry, above. Done in the same spirit as the current entry.

I did take out the "liberal" re: Media Matters without explanation; you put it back in, noting lack of explanation. I viewed it as an unnecessary injection of "political color" when it was just a source. The link to the article about MM allowed the reader to make his/her own conclusion about political color, I thought; and one wishing to comment on color could comment (with sources, of course) at the home article.

And re: the Broadcasting board footnote you changed: I thought the page with current directors (with, then and now, no Perino; thus saying albeit implicitly "she's not been confirmed"), and with the last-checked date in the entry itself, gave the best chance of keeping the article up to date and updatable/checkable by any reader going forward. Your press release doesn't have the updatable factor. Run them both? I'll of course try to catch the news and come back with it, as I expect you may, too.

I've also looked some now at the long discussion above ("No terrorist attacks") about the 9/11 (mis)statement. I'd like to ask, does the fact that FRich chose to highlight it three months after it happened, and put it in a larger context, change it for you? I guess so. (I'm not trying to be critical or difficult here. This is a tough one, and I'm hoping for your insight.) Do you think some statement like "After a long discussion in the blogosphere and Wiki talk, Frank Rich chose to highlight and put in a larger context a November misstatement ..." (fleshed out) would be an appropriate way to start that bit in the Perino article, now? There's something there. I hate to see too much effort being expended on "whose opinion of significance counts," and have good information excluded on those grounds, with Rich having become the de facto arbiter for Wiki in this case. I happened to be the one to bring Rich to Wiki. I saw no evidence the subject ever'd been broached. (No, I didn't check the talk page; should that be a recommended stop for any edit? I shudder a bit to think of that, but ....) (If you're interested, I am on the downhill side of another sort-of-similar discussion, for the while, here.) I also like to see credit given where it's deserved. The blogs and all those earlier Wiki editors helped -- helped Rich, probably -- here. Rich said the original Perino statement "aroused little notice"; but it did arouse some good notice; should Wiki ...? Well, enough for now (though I have to say that my opening paragraph here now seems another similar case: Do we have to wait for FRich to say the Perino/Limbaugh statements are significant?).

Sorry this is long. Swliv (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The Frank Rich editorial comes fromm the New York Times -- a gold standard as far as WP:RS is concerned. Colmes' blog is just the opposite -- it is a proscribed blog. Rich was right it received little attention -- by which he means the MSM from which Wikipedia's sources come from. Blogs are never used in WP:BLP (with few exceptions). The original Fox clip is not useful as it is a primary source. It is not for us to determine if that clip is notable -- it is up to third party reliable sources (published, mainstream, known for fact checking) to make an issue out of it. If, say, Frank Rich or there is a news report quoting criticism of the comment, then it would be appropriate to include. For instance, the press secretary Gibbs criticised Fox for not countering ex-Bush Katrina FEMA director Brown's absurd assertion that Obama delayed action on the oil spill in order to revert his position on off shore oil drilling. That was well covered and would be appropriate.

In this case, we have Colmes (which is not a reliable source) and we have Media Matters. But the Media Matters' "article" is one line -- a mere mention -- and hence I don't consider it sufficiently in depth to use. Colmes and MM may be conduits but they are not useful for a Wikipedia article. Nor would RedState or Drudge, etc. It may be of the same spirit as the Rich criticism, but Rich is in a published, mainstream, known for fact checking source. Colmes isn't. That is the difference.

It is good to characterize sources when they come from a particular viewpoint. MM comes from a liberal perspective. RedState comes from a conservative perspective. It helps to achieve neutrality to include that. For instance, I've tried to find a reliable source that characterizes Perino as conservative so that it could be included in the article. I couldn't find one. I believe the article is deficient because she is clearly coming from a conservative perspective but my opinion doesn't count.

I figured that you were inferring from your source the lack of mention of Perino means that she was in limbo. But I couldn't find a date in the report to confirm "as of May 6". Possibly the report you had was out of date -- possibly her appointment had been withdrawn. These are also valid inferences. My source explicitly states that her appointment is still active and waiting Senate action. I see no problem with including both sources. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 18:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

So, I went to Google news and there are several reliable sources (newspaper blogs are generally allowable -- see WP:BLPSPS: From USA Today [1], from the Guardian [2] and from Solon [3]. If carefully worded neutrally and attributed, it is my opinon that this information may be included now. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 19:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 19:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I've gotten a better understanding of the sourcing nuances. Nice re: oil spill. I took a shot at the nomination-tracking 2nd footnote, currently #17, not perfect but OK for me. Swliv (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

House Commitee on Oversight and Governmental Reform, Report, Council on Environmental Quality

http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3373:committee-report-white-house-engaged-in-systematic-effort-to-manipulate-climate-change-science-&catid=44:legislation

This information was previously included in the article on Dana Perino. She was the communications advisor to the Council on Environmental Quality when the panel found evidence of White House censorship of government scientists on the subject of Climate Change. Including the notorious editing of CDC Cheif Gerberding's study on the health hazards of climate change to reflect only Health Benefits in her sworn congressional testimony. I've linked to the findings of the committee which detail the abuses. You may also find sourcing in the Testimoney of Nasa Scientists such as James Hansen or in his book, Censoring Science. It is clear as communications advisor, she was responsible for press content from this organization and released edited statements on science reflecting a White House Policy of censorship involving Climate Change. To not include this in the article, is to remove several years of her White House Tenure and the national implications of her service. This report is included in the wiki entry on the CEQ and should be linked here.

Finding: 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. One such edit was the inclusion of a reference to a discredited, industry-funded paper. In a memo to the Vice President’s office, Mr. Cooney explained: “We plan to begin to refer to this study in Administration communications on the science of global climate change” because it “contradicts a dogmatic view held by many in the climate science community that the past century was the warmest in the past millennium and signals of human induced ‘global warming.’”

In the case of EPA’s Air Trends Report, CEQ went beyond editing and simply vetoed the entire climate change section of the report.

Other White House Actions

The White House played a major role in crafting the August 2003 EPA legal opinion disavowing authority to regulate greenhouse gases. CEQ Chairman James Connaughton personally edited the draft legal opinion. When an EPA draft quoted the National Academy of Science conclusion that “the changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities,” CEQ objected because “the above quotes are unnecessary and extremely harmful to the legal case being made.” The first line of another internal CEQ document transmitting comments on the draft EPA legal opinion reads: “Vulnerability: science.” The final opinion incorporating the White House edits was rejected by the Supreme Court in April 2007 in Massachusetts v. EPA.

The White House also edited a 2002 op-ed by EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman to ensure that it followed the White House line on climate change. Despite objections from EPA, CEQ insisted on repeating an unsupported assertion that millions of American jobs would be lost if the Kyoto Protocol were ratified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobnozal2 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to cut and paste. The source provided makes no mention of Perino or her involvement with this issue. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 23:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Second source, James Hanson, Censoring Science. http://books.google.com/books?id=cOPYz5pybksC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=Dana+Perino's+role+in+Censoring+Science&source=bl&ots=ZeC48cGrgR&sig=x9fz56R6mFB_2vFvq-uWoU_ZweQ&hl=en&ei=fqwlTPffCdODnQf8m4XhBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobnozal2 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC) http://books.google.com/books?id=cOPYz5pybksC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=Dana+Perino's+role+in+Censoring+Science&source=bl&ots=ZeC48cGrgR&sig=x9fz56R6mFB_2vFvq-uWoU_ZweQ&hl=en&ei=fqwlTPffCdODnQf8m4XhBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=CEQ&f=false--Bobnozal2 (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC) http://books.google.com/books?id=cOPYz5pybksC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=Dana+Perino's+role+in+Censoring+Science&source=bl&ots=ZeC48cGrgR&sig=x9fz56R6mFB_2vFvq-uWoU_ZweQ&hl=en&ei=fqwlTPffCdODnQf8m4XhBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAQ#v=snippet&q=Dana%20Perino&f=false--Bobnozal2 (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I added in the source to the report plus I added in (from your sources) the information about Perino killing negative info about hydrogen fuel cells. However, I didn't include your statement:

and, during her tenure, had in fact edited Congressional testimony on the subject of the health hazards of climate change, and climate change's effect on hurricanes

since I don't see it in any of the sources you provided. If you have Bowen's book, then please post the quotation here along with page number. If you don't, then post a link to a source that verifies that statement. Thanks! (BTW, type four tildes at the end of your post ~~~~ (the squiggle on the top left of the keyboard) to "sign" your posts.) ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 05:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Should her one-class teaching job be included in the lead?

24.110.174.98 (talk · contribs) has twice thrice added to the lead of the article:

In 2010, she started teaching a class in political communications part-time at George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management.

with the edit summary:

Once again, what matters is any positions she CURRENTLY holds. I believe her professorship merits being in the "lead". Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Begala as an example.)

First off, she doesn't hold a "professorship" -- the reference provided doesn't support that. The primary issue here is: Where should the detailed text be included. I argue putting it in the "Post-Bush administration career" section, while 24.110.174.98 argues it should be in the lead but not in the body of the text.

The guideline I will be using is WP:LEAD, part of the Wikipedia manual of style. In a nutshell:

The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight.

24.110.174.98's argues the standard should be "any positions she CURRENTLY holds" however this isn't part of the guideline. The lead describes the "important aspects" of the text article -- in other words, whatever is in the lead summarizes the body of the article. Perino's lead is deficient since it doesn't mention her work at Fox News -- clearly the most important current role. I will remedy that. The information relating to "positions she CURRENTLY holds" already has a place in the article: "Post-Bush administration career". The lead should encapsulate the most important aspect of her current career: Press Secretary and a Fox News commentator. Teaching one class on a part time basis is not lead-worthy. Nor would her work at KTSC, University of Illinois at Springfield, Burson-Marsteller nor Broadcasting Board of Governors nor for Scott McInnis nor Karl Rove, etc. You compare her part-time, one class gig to Beluga's full-time professorship. Beluga's article is faulty because it doesn't detail (nor even provide a reference for) that information in the body of the article. Just because another page is deficient, doesn't justify using it here. I could easily find tens of other pages that fit within the guidelines. John Ashcroft holds a similar one-class teaching gig at Regent University#Faculty which doesn't even rise to the level of inclusion on his page. Perino's biography is similarly meaty — this one-off teaching class doesn't rise to the same level as Press Secretary and commentator. The issue here is applying Wikipedia guidelines to this particular page regardless how it isn't being applied to other pages.

I will add in the Fox News job to the lead. Do you believe the article would be stronger if the lead included:

She currently is a commentator for Fox News and, part-time, works for a public relations firm, serves on the Broadcasting Board of Governors and teaches a class on communications.

But if you'd like, we could get a third opinion. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 17:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Echoing Rush

Lots42 (talk · contribs) removed:

echoing conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh's assertions that the timing of the explosion implied it was blown up intentionally.

saying it was original research. These are the quotes from the source:

Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh suggests environmentalists planned the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to derail support for offshore drilling. ... His conspiracy theory gained traction today[.] ... Dana Perino said she was "not trying to introduce a conspiracy theory" before asking, "But was this deliberate?"

I don't believe this is original research but I'm open to discussion. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 23:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be. If not, then it is certainly a WP:SYNTH issue. In any case, I have removed that statement, along with the previous one, concerning the USA Today reporter. The USA Today article quotes what Bush's Press Secretary said on Fox and Friends, about what Dana Perino said. It is, at best misleading. 2tuntony (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

First, why did you remove the quote about the BP disaster itself? For one, it is verifiable and attributed but it also orphans the following two quotes from Salon and Rich that are responses. Was this unintentional? I reverted your edit so that the text reads correctly.

Let's discuss the issue of Rush. I'm unsure what appearance of original research you are alleging, but I am confused by the "certainty" of WP:SYNTH which states:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

Please point out what are the two sources you are referring to. For this quote there is only one: USA Today. Now, you may be right that USA Today is synthesizing but that isn't proscribed -- in fact, because the conclusion was explicitly stated:

His conspiracy theory gained traction today[.] ... Dana Perino said she was "not trying to introduce a conspiracy theory" before asking, "But was this deliberate?"

it is the opposite of SYNTH. Possibly your concern should be directed at them but this statement is properly attributed to USA Today. The source is making the connection. The article text is attributing the connection to the source. There is no WP:SYNTH happening here. Nor, since it is verified and attributed to a reliable source, is there any original research going on. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 17:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)