Talk:Anita Dunn

Beck/Dunn - Proposed Text

• Based on the discussion here and the RFC comments below, there appears to be a consensus behind a brief mention of the incident in the article. Would anyone like to propose what the text should read? This would provide us with something specific to discuss. I hope to find text that we all would agree is neutral, and doesn't give too much weight to the matter. Jwesley₇₈ 22:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this version of 21:59, 16 November 2009 by Jwesley78 fulfills those requirements. A number of people below have indicated that they view this version favorably. PAR (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This version gets things backwards. The speech itself was not notable and did not generate controversy. What controversy there was was created by Beck's playing and replaying a clip of the speech, and trying to label Dunn a radical Maoist. This wasn't Hugo Chavez at the UN saying he could smell sulphur b/c George Bush had been present. Compare, for example, the article on Jeremiah Wright, which discusses his much more controversial remarks in the context of ABC discovering and playing parts of his sermons. Jimintheatl (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Educational background?

Google hasn't turned up anything when I searched for info about Dunn's alma mater(s), but the article is rather incomplete without noting her educational background. Anyone have sourced information about this?—DMCer™ 08:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I've been looking for an "official" page for her, but haven't found one yet. I'm sure the information is out there. I'll keep looking. Jwesley₇₈ 22:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Her profile here does not list an Alma Mater. According to this site, it is "Maryland", but it does not cite a source (nor say which University of Maryland). Still looking... Jwesley₇₈ 22:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is her official page with Squier Knapp Dunn Communications. It mentions that she has been a guest lecturer at several Universities, but none were listed as her Alma Mater. Jwesley₇₈ 23:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• This link states that her Alma Mater is University of Maryland. This source appears to be reliable. It does not say which "University of Maryland", but when not qualified, the term most commonly refers to the "flagship" campus in College Park. Jwesley₇₈ 02:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I see, good find. A bit odd I couldn't find other sites in my cursory search when googling with University of Maryland and Anita Dunn in separate quotes. Thanks for adding and citing.—DMCer™ 19:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Protected 1 month

Come up with some consensus wording and submit an {{editprotected}} request -- the current phrasing is problematic, but not actually BLP-violating.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Beck/Dunn Controversy

Is the Beck/Dunn controversy a notable event? Should any mention of this controversy be included in the article? Here's a quick (hopefully neutral) synopsis: The controversy relates to a statement of Dunn about her "favorite political philosopher", which she intended as irony. Beck used an excerpt of the speech containing that statement to make the claim that Dunn was a "Mao Worshipper" among other things. (See the many discussions on this talk page.) Jwesley₇₈ 05:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Framing it as a "controversy" colors the argument from the start. One of the main arguments is that there really wasn't any controversy surrounding this (other than on Beck's show) and thus it is just editorial criticism non-notable to a WP:BLP.--Loonymonkey (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Declaring that the argument has been "framed" implies both POV and a lack of factual support. Neither is true. The article as it was in the version of 21:59, 16 November 2009 was the result of a concentrated effort to give an NPOV description of the situation. Evidence that Anita Dunn's comments were in fact controversial is given by the fact that:

1. Anita Dunn engaged in the controversy by responding publicly to criticism of her comments
2. Many editorial comments were made in the "mainstream media" (excluding Fox News - see list above).
3. The incident occurred in the context of an obviously notable PR war between the administration and Fox News

it is therefore very notable to a WP:BLP. PAR (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, but briefly. Beck was not the only one on this, as conservative talk radio and blogosphere was jumping all over it. Mention of the issue should be included briefly, with applicable links for those who wish to know more. Something like "Towards the end of her tenure as White House Communications director, Dunn was pilloried by conservative commentators over remarks favorably citing former Chinese leader Mao Zedong, which Dunn said were taken out of context." It should not have its own subsection. Moogwrench (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Moogwrench: I believe that everyone involved in this discussion agrees that the Mao controversy should not have its own subsection. Can you give an opinion on the version of 21:59, 16 November 2009 by Jwesley78? It was this version that was the result of a concentrated effort to give a brief NPOV version of events as an alternative to eliminating all mention of the incident. Note that the footnotes give some verbatim quotes. Thanks. PAR (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Why yes this event is notable. It has been widely covered by the media and quite frankly this is the most notable thing about her. Richard (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Richard: Can you give an opinion on the version of 21:59, 16 November 2009 by Jwesley78? It was this version that was the result of a concentrated effort to give a brief NPOV version of events as an alternative to eliminating all mention of the incident. Note that the footnotes give some verbatim quotes. Thanks. PAR (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, briefly, and in correct context This wasn't a "controversy," but a campaign against several Obama appointees by conservative media personalities, particularly Glenn Beck. The issue should be framed in that context, and not spun as "controversy," because that's not what it is. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If inclusion is warranted, this is the sort of edit I would/have been advocating.Jimintheatl (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"Frame" is just another word for "spin". To suggest that we "frame" this article in any particular way is to suggest that we push a particular POV. To suggest that there is no controversy requires a definition of the word "controversy". Wiktionary defines it as "debate, discussion of opposing opinions". As evidenced by the long list of sources above, it is abundantly clear that this is indeed a notable controversy.

The concept of "framing" a political argument is one developed by George Lakoff. His thesis is that the words used to engage in an argument unavoidably carry a moral opinion with them and that all political discourse is a struggle to "frame" an argument and promote one's own moral beliefs. For example, the left wants to know: Are you for or against a woman's right to choose? The right wants to know: Are you for or against the murder of unborn children? In other words, there is no such thing as NPOV, only a framing war between the right and the left. If this is true, then for Wikipedia editors, every page is a framing war and any hope of transmitting an unbiased account of events is doomed from the start. All any editor can hope for is a win for their POV. I reject that idea completely, as should any other editor. See also http://www.chelseagreen.com/bookstore/item/elephant.

So essentially, what is being suggested is that the description of events be "framed" as a campaign by the right against the left, rather than dealing directly, and in as neutral a way as possible, with the fact of the speech itself and the nature of the (two sided!) controversy surrounding it. PAR (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You somehow suggest that we can avoid "framing" the incident in question. That is false. The question is, how can we frame it best in light of the situation and the sources available?

I disagree with that assessment of the situation. Yes, multiple sides will attempt to "frame" the situation in different ways when conflicts arise. However, I do not see evidence of a two-sided controversy. One group is clearly on the offensive, specifically looking to dig up dirt on particular people [1], and has specifically stated the goal is to get all appointees fired or to resign [2]. On the other hand, there isn't really an organized defense from the other group. There are those news-ish organizations on the left that attempt to defend their side as part of their mission, but that's about it.

That's not a controversy (which would imply two sides in a back-and-forth argument). It's a campaign (in which one side is on the attack and the other is just playing defense). Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 15:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I went off on a tangent with the Lakoff thing, but Lakoff has some deep insights into political discourse, and I am very interested in his analysis, and that analysis applies here in a big way.

The word "attack" implies an attempt to take over "turf" held rightfully by someone else. "Defense" implies an attempt by the owner of that "turf" to prevent that takeover. If the "turf" is rightfully held by the right, then it is the left who is attacking, the right defending. You "frame" the conflict as an attack by the right, defense by the left. To be neutral, we should not be declaring who owns the "turf", and therefore who is attacking and who is defending. If the "war" is notable, we, as editors, should only identify the "turf", describe the battles, and give equally each side's argument for why they think they own the "turf". To do otherwise is to push a POV.

What is this "turf" they are fighting over? Who owns it? I think the "turf" is credibility, and the power to push an agenda that comes from that credibility. The "war" is basically the attempts by each side to destroy their opponents credibility (which they see as undeserved or "unowned") and to defend their own (which they see as deserved or "owned"). It is our job as editors to describe and chronicle these attempts and refer the reader to other sources in order to expand their knowledge. If the reader believes that they know who owns what "turf", then that is their business, but we should not be making that decision for them.

Could you please check the version of 21:59, 16 November 2009 by Jwesley78. This version is a concentrated attempt to do just that. PAR (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I was starting to write a reply to all of this, but it occurs to me that you are attempting to philosophize things a little too much. Basically, you seem to be saying that we should not phrase the attack on Dunn's credibility as such, not because that's what it is, but because it's part of a pattern of behavior both sides use in their war.

Nevertheless, I believe the version you are referring to: [3], is good wording. My main concern when dealing with the czar issues I've run into has been that it should be clear where the criticism is coming from, and not stated vaguely (several versions I've seen imply wider criticism than is actually supported by sources). Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, good then. I know, I get carried away sometimes, but the word "frame" is a hot-button issue with me - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)#Politics. And yes, to bring the philosophizing to earth, if the war is notable, we should report the war, the battles and the stakes, without picking sides. PAR (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think what Sxeptomaniac was saying initially, and I apologize if I'm misconstruing, is what I have said previously. That is, no one here is seriously willing to argue, as Beck initiated and presented the "controversy," that Dunn "worships" her "hero" Mao. We do a disservice to the project if we do not present context.Jimintheatl (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, of course It was major news-of-the-moment. It wasn't terribly notable in the Wikipedia sense of meriting its own article, but it was a significant event in the context of Anita Dunn's public exposure. If she had gone on to do other great things, then perhaps there would be a reason to minimize this, but so far, that hasn't happened. Ray^Talk 18:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Oxymoron alert: "major news- of- the- moment." Which is another reason this incident doesn't merit inclusion.Jimintheatl (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey editors! Let's join the similar discussion on the Mike Huckabee-Maurice Clemmons controversy! Is anyone in favor of suppressing this incident as a non-notable attack by the left? I am not. Now who's on my side? PAR (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:POINT, as well as WP:WHATDOYOUTHINKYOURSIS and WP:FAILTOMAKEONEJimintheatl (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, briefly as above. It was picked up widely in the press and deserves mention here. WVBluefield (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit protected request

I would like to have the present version reverted to that 21:59, 16 November 2009 by Jwesley78. I believe that every editor involved in this discussion, if they had to choose only between the present version and the above mentioned version, would choose the above mentioned version. Please note that if this editprotected request is accepted, it does not imply that everyone agrees with that version. Unless I hear aguments supporting the present version over the proposed version, I will make an editprotected request soon.PAR (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with this request. For all of the reasons stated by me and other editors above.Jimintheatl (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Then you prefer the present wording rather than the above version? PAR (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Since there's no consensus for either version, that's sort of a false dichotomy. Yeah, the current wording is terrible, but this is just another case of WP:WRONGVERSION. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

IF this is to included, I would support an edit in the WH Comm Dir section following her criticism of Fox along the lines of "Following her criticism, Glenn Beck discovered and repeatedly played a portion of a speech Dunn gave at (high school.) during which she referenced Mao-Tse-Tung and Mother Theresa as "two of my favorite political philosophers(Footnote to full quote). Beck claimed the speech revealed Dunn as a Maoist; Dunn said her reference was meant to be humorous, ironic, was taken from Lee Atwater, yada yada yada"Jimintheatl (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

All I'm trying to do is establish a consensus that the version of 21:59, 16 November 2009 by Jwesley78 is an improvement over the present version. I will never point to that consensus as proof that the version 21:59, 16 November 2009 is acceptable to all as a final version, and you can quote me on that. To repeat, anyone who agrees that such a change is for the better is NOT saying that it is an acceptable final version by any means. Can we agree that it is an edit that should be made under these conditions? Thats all I'm asking. PAR (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. It's better, but not good.Jimintheatl (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think I would support (essentially) what Jimintheatl quoted above. How about this:

Following her criticism, Glenn Beck played on his show a portion of a speech Dunn gave at a high school graduation, during which she referenced Mao-Tse-Tung and Mother Theresa as two of her "favorite political philosophers"(Footnote to full quote). Beck claimed the speech revealed Dunn as a Maoist, while Dunn said her reference was meant to be ironic, and was a quote borrowed from Lee Atwater (citation).

If requested, I will try to defend any variations between this and what "Jim" says above. Jwesley₇₈ 02:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is a consensus to make the above mentioned edit. Then we can discuss further improvements. I hope the administrator reading this will realize that there is a consensus and ignore the discussion about what the optimum edit would be. I will submit the request. PAR (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I would much prefer something along the lines of Jimintheatl's wording, rather than simply reverting to the November 16th version. Something about the Mao issue should be included, since it happened so close to the time she resigned (I'm not synthesizing here, just saying).—DMCer™ 03:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

DMCer - The suggested version does mention the Mao incident. PAR (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• DMCer - Just to be clear, when you say that you "prefer ... Jimintheatl's wording" are you saying you prefer it specifically to reverting? Or that the you prefer Jim's original wording to the variation I posted? Jwesley₇₈ 06:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Jwesley78's version is better than Jimintheatl's version. I'm not trying to offend anyone, I just think it is better written and clearer. Moogwrench (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, I must've been looking at the wrong thing. Having gone over all versions again, I prefer Jwesley's quote above (over Jimintheatl's wording, and as opposed to reverting to the Nov. 16th version).—DMCer™ 23:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, Jwesley's quote above is not neutral. One side of the argument claims she said they are her "favorite political philosophers" (period) and the other side says this is twisting her words because the quote was (I'm paraphrasing) "two of my favorite political philosophers for delivering a simple point....". The text as written above, presents the Beck criticism as fact while ignoring the rebuttal. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Looneymonkey, here's the relevant excerpt of her quote: "The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Zedong and Mother Theresa -- not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is ...". I've not seen any RS make the claim that you are making. We must take the quote verbatim and only provide such a qualification if it can be found in a reliable source. Basically, we should not try to reinterpret the quote for the reader. Furthermore, we are discussing the quote in the context of Beck's (wild) claim, which is that they are her "favorite politcal philosophers". Jwesley₇₈ 01:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a huge stretch to say that including that part of her quote is not neutral. The full quote will be at the footnote, anyway.—DMCer™ 06:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Second edit protected request

{{editprotected}}

I would like to have the present version reverted to that 21:59, 16 November 2009 by Jwesley78. I believe that every editor involved in this discussion, if they had to choose only between the present version and the above mentioned version, would choose the above mentioned version. Please note that if this editprotected request is accepted, it does not imply that everyone agrees with that version.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE - Do not add anything to this section unless it is to state an objection to the {{editprotected}} request, in other words, that you believe that the present wording is preferable to the version of 21:59, 16 November. PAR (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the current revision, it's short and to the point, NPOV. It does need more sources added and maybe some small wording tweaks. ThinkEnemies (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the current revision also. The older version is too wordy, in my opinion. Microchip08 21:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL (baffled) - ok, present version it is. PAR (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Me, too. Baffled, that is. Should we go for Jwesley or my more recent versions; tweak them before making another request?Jimintheatl (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that what User:Rjd0060 wanted to see was a fairly unambiguous indication of a consensus. He did not want to have to follow the discussion, and sort out the discussion of what is optimum from the fact that we (almost) all agree that the edit is an improvement. I think he came here, saw an argument that he did not want to sort out, along with two people opposing it, and refused the edit. I don't think it matters to an administrator what edit we want, as long as a consensus, or near consensus is easily seen. The main problem I have with the present edit is the separate section heading giving too much weight. I think everybody can be convinced of that. Maybe start there. Then start agreeing on other improvements, rather than an endless argument over what is perfection. PAR (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. User:ThinkEnemies and the other dissenting voice said nothing about this in the previous discussion, so I'm not sure what "small wording tweaks" means in terms of reaching consensus. I still think Jwesley's version is a good basis for moving forward, but it'd be helpful if the people who disagree could propose something they'd be comfortable with (if it comes to that).—DMCer™ 04:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree with the current wording because it's way too vague and misleading regarding the character of the incident. The video didn't "surface," someone found it and aired it. We know that was Glen Beck, so we should say so. Glossing over partisan battles as "debate" is also unclear. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll present this text again here for comment:

Following her criticism, Glenn Beck played on his show a portion of a speech Dunn gave at a high school graduation, during which she referenced Mao-Tse-Tung and Mother Theresa as two of her "favorite political philosophers"(Footnote to full quote). Beck claimed the speech revealed Dunn as a Maoist, while Dunn said her reference was meant to be ironic, and was a quote borrowed from Lee Atwater (citation).

I know Looney had some concerns about the neutrality of this statement. Does anyone else feel that way? If not, perhaps we can have a consensus around deleting the current section, and adding this paragraph. Jwesley₇₈ 02:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not like this paragraph and will not support it. Specifically the words "Following her criticism", "Beck claimed", and "Dunn said". Were Dunn's statements "criticism" or an "attack"? We should not pass judgement. "Beck claimed" is weasel-wording, suggesting the statements were not legitimate, while "Dunn said" is neutral. I mean, lets switch the two words, it reads "Beck said the speech revealed Dunn as a Maoist, while Dunn claimed her reference was meant to be ironic, and was a quote borrowed from Lee Atwater. Is that just as acceptable as the above version? I doubt anyone believes that both versions are equally acceptable. I think this is more neutral:

Following her statements, Glenn Beck played on his show a portion of a speech Dunn gave at a high school graduation, during which she referenced Mao-Tse-Tung and Mother Theresa as two of her "favorite political philosophers"(Footnote to full quote). Beck stated that the speech revealed Dunn as a Maoist, while Dunn stated that her reference was meant to be ironic, and was a quote borrowed from Lee Atwater (citation).

Still, I believe this is inferior to Jwesley's November 16 version, in which quotes are allowed to speak for themselves. PAR (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I favor a combination of both versions. PAR's above clarifies that Mao was one of "two" of her favorite philosophers, and Jwesley's version was a little more specific in describing the settings. As for the current version, it's way too vague in that it avoids any mention of what the controversy was about. My proposal:

On June 5, 2009, Dunn delivered a speech to students at St. Andrew’s Episcopal School of Potomac, Maryland, during which she named Mao-Tse-Tung and Mother Theresa as two of her "favorite political philosophers"(footnote to full quote). Four days after Dunn appeared on CNN's Reliable Sources (i.e., October 15, 2009), Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck aired a clip of the speech on his show, stating it revealed Dunn as a Maoist. In response to the criticism, Dunn stated that her reference was meant to be ironic, and was a quote borrowed from Lee Atwater. (citations for everything, of course)

That said, I would support either, if it comes to that.—DMCer™ 06:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No. This version, while chronologically correct, misses the point of the "controversy." I.e., that there was no controversy about the speech itself. The controversy came after Dunn criticized Fox and Beck aired the video and made his Maoist charge in response. I'm OK with PAR's latest proposal.Jimintheatl (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm onboard, as long as DMCer doesn't come for my family. Seriously, I've made a few contributions to this article that have lasted, I'll try to partake in the discussion from this point on. Merry Christmas all.

I refuse to be PC, I also refuse to deny the pandemonium I've observed during my Christmas shopping. ThinkEnemies (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Why would I do such a thing? I'm delightful.—DMCer™ 03:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• I like PAR's proposal the best. Unless somebody can show that it has some serious problem, I think we should propose this to be the new text. (I'm ready to finish this discussion!) Perhaps we can do some sort of Support or Oppose voting below, so we can let our opinions be known. Jwesley₇₈ 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(1) Proposed text for the Dunn/Beck event

• Proposed text:

Following her statements, Glenn Beck played on his show a portion of a speech Dunn gave at a high school graduation, during which she referenced Mao-Tse-Tung and Mother Theresa as two of her "favorite political philosophers"(Footnote to full quote). Beck stated that the speech revealed Dunn as a Maoist, while Dunn stated that her reference was meant to be ironic, and was a quote borrowed from Lee Atwater (citation).

• Support. It is (or is about as close as we can get to being) neutral, and informative without implying too much prominence about the event. And best of all, I think it's a text that most of us can agree upon. Jwesley₇₈ 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• SupportJimintheatl (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Let's try this again.—DMCer™ 03:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support As an improvement only. Can we alter the proposed edit to include removing the header? PAR (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah. I should've clarified. It's intended that the current section be removed, and the above paragraph be used instead. Jwesley₇₈ 16:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we go forward with this?Jimintheatl (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

CommentSeems like we should include the other main focus of the quotation. "Not often coupled with each other, but the two people that I turn to most." Morphh ^(talk) 5:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Support when this is added... as two of her "favorite political philosophers" and "the two people that I turn to most." Morphh ^(talk) 13:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Turn to most." (period) would be unduly POV as it taking part of a sentence out of context to construe a totally different meaning (as Beck did). She actually said "... two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is..." Putting the full quote in the footnote, while not ideal (or very often done) would seem to quell your concern. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree - Yes... she did a long pause there after "turn to most" and then continued with her statement, which sort of left it hanging out there... Morphh ^(talk) 18:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support weakly, but this is as good and as neutral as consensus will ever be on this issue. I would hate to still be discussing this in 2010! --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request - from consensus

{{editprotected}}

• The existing section titled "Mao Tse-tung Controversy" should be removed.

• At the end of the section titled "White House Communications Director", the following paragraph should be added:

• I should've said "before the last paragraph". Jwesley₇₈ 06:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Following her statements, Glenn Beck played on his show a portion of a speech Dunn gave at a high school graduation, during which she referenced Mao-Tse-Tung and Mother Theresa as two of her "favorite political philosophers". Beck stated that the speech revealed Dunn as a Maoist, while Dunn stated that her reference was meant to be ironic, and was a quote borrowed from Lee Atwater.

[Forgot my signature] Jwesley₇₈ 05:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Done diff. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the Mao controversy is old hat at this point and should be removed. Anyone agree?Ndriley97 (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• No. It was the "defining" moment of her tenure as WHCD. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 00:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• No. I agree with Justin W Smith. PAR (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Revolutionary Holocaust

She's included in Glenn Beck's documentary as an example of people in the US government today who continue to admire Mao, which is pretty notable. Bachcell (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Article includes Dunn's assertion that she was joking -- without pointing out inconsistency with the video

Seems like the article should not include Dunn's statement without mentioning its implausibility per the video.[4]William Jockusch (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a controversial article, which means (hopefully) zero tolerance for personal opinion or analysis. If you have a reference which deals with the supposed implausibility of the statement, then it might fly. Even better would be a second reference which deals with the supposed plausibility of the statement. Then let the better-informed reader decide. PAR (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Date of birth

This is not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.205.224 (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Anita might have been born in the 1950's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.96.198 (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality?

All of her White House tenure is about this small thing about the bias of Fox News, and then the SKDK section is all about access to the president and supporting "controversial" companies. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, are you suggestion though to minimize it, remove or replace it?--FrankTursetta (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anita Dunn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100228202535/http://www.squiermedia.com/our-team/SquierKnappDunn/AnitaDunn.aspx to http://www.squiermedia.com/our-team/SquierKnappDunn/AnitaDunn.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/12/white-house-escalates-war-words-fox-news

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Career

My name's John and I am here to disclose that I work for SKDK and would like to submit a couple updates based on The Mastermind Behind Biden’s No-Drama Approach to Trump in The Atlantic. I would like editors to consider adding the following to the Career section:

• The Atlantic reported that Dunn has worked on six Democratic presidential campaigns over 40 years and is "the only person in modern presidential politics who has been in the inner circle of two winning candidates—first Barack Obama’s and now Biden’s."
• Dunn first met Biden in the 1980s during her time as the communications director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. They reconnected in 2008 when Biden was named as Obama's running mate.

References

I work for SKDK. I will not edit the article directly because of this. John at SKDKDigital (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@John at SKDKDigital:  Done - I've added the information to the article, see Special:Diff/1006110474. I broke up some of the information, putting the "six campaigns" part in the lead and the rest in the "2020 Biden campaign" section. If you have any minor comments regarding the wording of this edit, feel free to {{ping}} me (but substantial edits should be put in another edit request). Thanks for your contributions. Best, DanCherek (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

...and I've fixed the weird grammatical errors that I accidentally introduced. Best, DanCherek (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the recent edit war

KidAd, 89.140.234.217, I have added back in what the IP said using a more reliable source, discussed here: [5]. Note that the IP does appear to be editing with the sole purpose of defaming Dunn with the Mao edits and painting her as a Maoist.

We need to add her net worth

How on earth is someone with such unimpressive credentials, who started their career in public service, worth tens of millions of dollars? This is corruption of the highest order and is of public interest. For example, SKDK got a no bid contract in California for the 2020 election that wasn't even funded until the Dem controlled government, with Newsom's signature, cut her firm a special paycheck from the general fund. I guess it pays to be connected/corrupt. Here is a link: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/08/12/biden-senior-advisor-anita-dunn-has-to-divest-investment-portfolio-to-avoid-conflict.html BATTLECRUISER OPERATIONAL (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Fabricated quote re: Weinstein

The current version of the section on Harvey Weinstein contends that Anita Dunn told Weinstein in an email, "you should accept your fate graciously, and not seek to deny or discredit those who your behavior has affected."

However, those were not actually Anita Dunn's words. A British man named James Lipton spoofed a number of email addresses around that time and wrote to Weinstein pretending to be people Weinstein would know.

As this CNN article from 2017 states:

"The prankster netted the real Weinstein as well by pretending to be Anita Dunn, the former White House communications director for President Barack Obama. Dunn was asked by a mutual friend to speak to Weinstein several weeks ago. In response to the fake Dunn, the real Weinstein wrote, 'I’m sick - I need your advice. All my best, Harvey.' The prankster replied, 'I’m sure redemption can be found Harvey, but only if you’re willing to be as brave as those who have found the strength to stand up to you. You should accept your fate graciously, and not seek to deny or discredit those who your behaviour has affected.'"

James Lipton, who was described as the prankster, also posted the emails on Twitter around that time: https://twitter.com/SINON_REBORN/status/917841584359698432

One clue that the quote was not actually from Dunn is that it uses the British spelling for "behaviour." Dunn is American. Awrtsd (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Great find. I made an initial edit. Feel free to expand on it if you want. A type of cabinet (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)