Talk:Matthew Dowd

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Controversy & Notability[edit]

Is his change of heart really a "Controversy"? Doesn't that marginalize or trivialize it too much by putting it under such a heading?

Is this person noteworthy in some way? What is the purpose of this article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkoden (talk • contribs)

The article mentions the following roles: Senior adviser to the Republican National Committee, close presidential aide, Simon & Schuster author, visiting professor at a respected university. That is enough to establish notability. Although the article should elaborate more on his role in the 2004 presidential campaign, I don't think a "notability" or "importance" tag is in order. Also, I don't quite understand in what respects the text "resembles a fan site", please be more specific. Regards, High on a tree 21:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Close presidential aide"? Care to cite something to that effect? I get the fact that he was paid almost a thousand dollars, but there are many consultants who get paid more than a thousand dollars without being terribly close to their employer. Jamesofengland 07:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I had already cited the Washington Post article, which says: One after another, aides who have stuck with [Bush] are heading out the door. [...] Others who have left have publicly castigated the president. Bush was particularly hurt, friends said, when reelection strategist Matthew Dowd disavowed him. This is clear evidence that Dowd had an important working relationship with the president, in the view of Bush himself and in the assessment of the Washington Post. Regards, High on a tree 23:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still fail to see how this person is noteworthy. The article reads like an advertisement, not an encyclopedia entry. Unless the role in an election campaign was somehow critical to success, and that can be documented, then it's not really noteworthy. Is it? Most of the article is trivia. The article references do not note any accomplishment. Simply saying "I don't think a 'notability' or 'importance' tag is in order" does not justify their removal. The onus is on proponents of the article to prove its importance. I'll refrain from reapplying them, but unless something noteworthy, that meets at least one of the biographical criteria, is added, then I will submit this article for removel in the future. pkoden 01:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To quote George Bush: "He was an integral part of my 2004 campaign." He was the chief strategist of the 2004 re-election campaign. The suggestion that he is not 'noteworthy' is ludicrous. Dlabtot 07:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ludicrous indeed Mk17b (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal[edit]

Why is his defection from the Bush ranks included in this section? It's clearly related to his career, not his personal life.

And how can Sidney Blumenthal's speculation as to his sincerity be considered 'encyclopedic'? Dlabtot 19:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were a number of articles quoted from and referenced that took Dowd's claims at face value. Blumenthal's speculation is based on some solid facts and quotes. Amongst other things, he notes to any Republican political or ideological principles was has tended to be ambiguous at best, although his strategy was to make a number of those positions more extreme. While that does not necessarily mean that he was acting in bad faith (consultants, like attorneys, can reasonably advise clients to take actions that they do not personally disagree with without acting in bad faith), it does raise the implication. It did not seem like an excessively intrusive sentence in the entry, although I'm comfortable with your edit. It does seem as if an article that presented the disconnect between his various public statements and positions should be included in the article, though. I'd be happy to see a different one than Blumenthal's replacing it if you do not feel it comes up to Wiki standards.Jamesofengland 19:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll simply note that your original characterization of the Blumenthal article was inaccurate and leave it at that. Dlabtot 20:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude! Does that not strike you as the kind of claim that deserves a little more textual support? As you note, the piece repeatedly charges Dowd with opportunism, with some evidence. Do you feel that it does not also suggest a manufactured narrative? For example: "As the pollster who helped bring Bush to power and sustained him there, Dowd is expert in framing stories, and he has framed his own as a classic conversion narrative. But the political consultant cleanses his story of politics, so it is hardly surprising that there are gaps in the telling and characters missing. Dowd does not offer any explanation of why Bush has changed, only how he, Dowd, perceives the changes." Or, later "His self-involved and tortuous explanation of his disillusionment helps cast light on the banality of his motives in his original defection from Democrat to Bush Republican." In other words, the high drama of the narrative that he put forward contrasted with the "banality" of the actual events. The rest of the article is a large collection of ways in which Dowd demonstrates his lack of commitment to the principles that he claims motivated them. It might not be correct, I don't know mr. Dowd, and it's certainly not a balanced piece. Perhaps it shouldn't be in Wikipedia, although I think it probably should be, but I don't see how my statement regarding its contents was inaccurate. Jamesofengland 16:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with Maria Shriver[edit]

I added sourced info about Dowd's relationship with Shriver. When viewing past history I noticed that this info once appeared but was removed. Any idea why? Mk17b (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see now it was removed by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz with the reasoning that "no current source". Is that reason to remove it all? Mk17b (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be disgenuous. You inserted (and restored) material I described as "horrid tabloidery" to insert anonymously sourced statements from a notoriously unreliable gossip column placing the subjects in an unfavorable light. That's a gross BLP violation. The "no current source" edit summary is about a year old, and was based on the fact that the article said, in 2015, that two people had been dating "since 2013" based on a 2013 source. That's not acceptable. There's no serious dispute about this. Wikipedia is not a compendium of celebrity dating histories, and you need either a reliable source that the relationship is current or a reliable source indicating the relationship was a significant event in the parties' lives to include it. And gossip columns quoting anonymous sources don't cut it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how this is being disingenuous. Forgive my ignorance but since when did the Washington Post become a tabloid? I understand you may feel that some rumors etc. don't belong but to just delete the whole thing? On what basis? Mk17b (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Washington Post isn't a tabloid at all, however this particular column appears to be a gossip column written by "The reliable source" so I'd hesitant to use this without some kind of reliable source backing it up (i.e, a regular news column, not a gossip column). KoshVorlon 12:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify further: BLP policy generally forbids the use of 'tabloid jounalism' not 'tabloid newspapers'. Reliable news publishers may engage in tabloid journalism (see gossip column explanation by KoshVorlon above), but likewise Tabloid newspapers may occasionally engage in proper investigative journalism. For BLP purposes we look at the type of content and the context in which it is used, rather than 'was it printed by a red-top'. For this specific issue, anyone who takes BLP seriously is unlikely to use a source from a celebrity gossip column regardless of who published it. Especially when it is something sensitive like relationships. This is a common misunderstanding made by editors regarding the BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very little to add to the two quite accurate responses above, except to note that my comment about tabloidery also referred to a truly awful, anonymously sourced piece in the New York Post' "Page Six" gossip column, which is on its face far from a reliable source, especially in a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Matthew Dowd. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life[edit]

Hi all! I added this comment on the Maria Shriver talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maria_Shriver) and i'm re-posting here for clarity...

just wanted to ask a question here and perhaps clear up a small issue: On Feb 4, I made an edit to the personal life section because i noticed a small inaccuracy. A contribution added by User Ninebeena read as "The couple announced their split in November 2020." citing this source: https://people.com/celebrity/maria-shriver-single-dating/. It looked to me that the source never mentioned anything about an announcement from Shiver or Dowd. I did some Googling to try to find the announcement of this split, but i couldn't find anything reliable, so, I thought it would be helpful to make a small edit and replace "The couple announced their split in November 2020." with "Shriver confirmed she was single in May 2017." which seemed to accurately reflect what the source reference was reporting. I'm seeing now that Ninebeena has removed by edit entirely and re-added "The couple announced their split" but I really don't see any confirmation of this announcement at all.

I've undone Ninebeena's change re-adding the announcement reference, but wanted to ask Ninebeena and the larger community here where the source is for this announcement? I just can't find a source for this anywhere. Thanks all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaredUram (talk • contribs) 17:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 30 2021 on Jonathan Capehart show[edit]

Stated that republicans showing up at Memorial Day events to honor those who fought for democracy are afraid to cast a vote to defend it, Jan 6 commission Wikipietime (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Matthew_Dowd&oldid=1199313899"