Jump to content

Talk:Dana Milbank

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

Another source for unpublishable nickname?

[edit]

I just read the source backing up the statement, "According to Milbank, the nickname given to him by the president is "not printable in a family publication."

Here's the relevant text from the source: BK: President Bush is famous for giving nicknames to members of the press corps. Do you have a nickname? DM: It’s not printable in a family publication.

Having seen Milbank appear on the Keith Olbermann show several times, he comes across as having a dry sense of humor. Are we certain that what he said in this interview isn't just an exaggeration? Has he repeated this elsewhere? 98.215.54.162 (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A Jewish American political reporter"?

[edit]

By you that's NPOV? Are you saying that everything the man writes is on the direct orders of his rabbi? I'm going to remove that description because it's completely inappropriate and raises questions about the motivations of the person who created this article.

Ken Burch 04:23, 30 April 2008

"Presumptuous" column controversy

[edit]

Is this really a "controversy"? Is it more of a "controversy" then the time Milbank wore the hunting outfit on air as a Cheney joke? If it were I would expect to see some better sources than TPM, Huffpo and Olberman.

Also Milbank has had a fairly long career and one column that no mainstream sources noted as “controversial” is half of this article? That would seem to be a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT, and I will delete it. CENSEI (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is covered by Politico and TPM and Olbermann are reputable sources.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0808/WaPos_Milbank_leaves_Countdown_.html

--John Bahrain (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_Points_Memo has won serious journalism awards such as the Polk Award. --John Bahrain (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that, and the column resulted in Milbank quitting MSNBC and going to CNN, which you know, is part of Milbank's biography. — goethean ॐ 18:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, now it only violates WP:WEIGHT, so how exactly do we pair this down to a sentence so it does not dominate the article? CENSEI (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does not violate undue weight. The guy had to resign for misrepresenting Obama's words in an national newspaper column. I think the question here is why you are invested in minimizing or erasing all coverage of this episode. — goethean ॐ 23:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, whether or not he misinterpreted Obama is up to interpretation, and will not be stated as a fact. Secondly let us review WP:WEIGHT, shall we?

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

One article that pissed of MMFA and Olbermann .... not that notable. If you keep this up I will bring thsi to the BLP noticeboard. Keep it up after that and you will be sanctioned. The only reason I am here doing this is because it needs to be done. CENSEI (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CENSEI, you are very confrontational, you are spoiling for a fight and you don't appear to be a new user. What is going on? --John Bahrain (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a new user, I have been on here for over a month and spent nearly 1-1/2 years at Conservapedia. Too many idiots there as well, just a different kind and the fact that no one reads it made me realize I need to go where the action is. Most of my time has been spent reading articles and policies, and I am not spoiling for a fight, I just want to straiten things out here as much as I can. By the looks, its going to take a lot of work CENSEI (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
::: One article that pissed of MMFA and Olbermann .... not that notable. If you keep this up I will bring thsi to the BLP noticeboard. Keep it up after that and you will be sanctioned. The only reason I am here doing this is because it needs to be done.
Milbank resigned MSNBC due to claims of misquoting Obama. I added an account of Milbank's alleged misquotation to the footnotes of this article, and you removed it, citing undue weight. Milbank deserves to have the details in the article, rather than the unspecified, general claims that remain after you have removed most of the text. I will revert your removal of the alleged misquotation. — goethean ॐ 01:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You also removed the cited fact that Milbank worked for MSNBC from 2004 to 2008. Why? — goethean ॐ 02:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guy had to resign for misrepresenting Obama's words in an national newspaper column.
"had to resign" is a misrepresentation. He made a choice to move from MSNBC to CNN. Jibal (talk) 11:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I highly recommend involving others in this dispute for everyone's sake. More eyes will result in a better solution. --John Bahrain (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I will post to the WP:BLP board. CENSEI (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:CENSEI has again removed the talkingpointsmemo.com ref, discussed above, from the article. — goethean ॐ 16:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need three sources for the exact same piece of information? But on secodn thought, TPM is a much better source than MMFA, so I will swap the two out. CENSEI (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, its now on the BLP noticeboard, why not give some other people a chance to weigh in. It is up to you to show why a potential BLP issue warrants inclusion, not for me to argue why it does not (although I have done that at quite some length). CENSEI (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you removing sources at all? — goethean ॐ 16:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are terrible, and we have better ones. CENSEI (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible? They are reliable sources, and permissible. Your personal issues with them are irrelevant. — goethean ॐ 17:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lets be honest here, MMFA is a terrible source for any information, but especially BLP's. After reading the WP:RS board for instances where MMFA has been brought up, it would seem that there are cases where MMFA is acceptable as a source of quotes (primary source for tanscripts) but very few instances where they are a reliable secondary source and even then only for as opinion, never facts. CENSEI (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with CENSEI, it violates WP:WEIGHT. If there were recordings and all of this were anything but allegations, that might lead me to a different conclusion. In addition, there is no substantiation for the statement that Milbank did leave because of this disagreement with Olbermann. This section deserves one sentence or two at most. --Ystava (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Also, I read the citation for Milbank not being allowed on Oberman's show without a retraction and didn't see it in there. Did I miss it? Its quite a long read. Thank you. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pare(not pair)something down, and straighten something out (not straiten). Just thought you might be interested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.121.1 (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't your browser have a search function? Jibal (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war

[edit]

User:CENSEI has sparked a minor revert war with removal of reliably-sourced text related to this issue. Here is a copy of the comment I left on the editor's talk page:

In Milbank's own article, he writes that Obama says:
"This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for," adding: "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."
He uses this as his justification for calling him "presumptuous". The reported words were:
"It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."
This is absolutely the opposite of what Milbank said. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn noted that this had been taken entirely out of context on FOX News. Please take things to talk pages before resorting to original research in future. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This non-neutral editing will need to be monitored. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To use the Obamaphilic TPM or Huffington post as a source for facts and not just opinions not only violates WP:BLP but WP:NPOV and WP:RS as well:

However, great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. When citing opinion pieces from newspapers or other mainstream news sources, in-text attribution should be given.

As Milbank has not apologized or issued a correction, and that no audio exists to confirm the quote given in any of the sources cited, the material has to be written in a neutral manner, something that you have instigated an edit war to avoid doing. Badmintonhist's edit is certainly an improvement over both versions, and you would do well to leave it be. CENSEI (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who had a hand in the original wording of the sentence in question, I think Badmintonhist's edit is an excellent one, and should satisfy both sides. Any further edit warring over this is not justified. Aloha, Arjuna (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To use the Obamaphilic TPM or Huffington post as a source for facts and not just opinions -- no wonder that this person spent a lot of time at Conservapedia and is now blocked here. Jibal (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dana Milbank. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated removal of content

[edit]

This appears well-sourced and this talk page does not discuss the specifics of what was removed. Jim1138 (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

see my discussion on jim's talk page74.129.177.174 (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss here. Jim1138 (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dana Milbank. 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: 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) 18:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Equal time provision.

[edit]

As I recall, President Obama assured Rupert Murdoch that he would not revive the Equal Time Provision. I was able to rebut reports in the 1960,s by conservative LA broadcaster George Putnam made against then California Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally.

Probably one of Obama’s worst mistakes. Look at Fox Slooze since then. Why not do a column on Nancy reviving it? 2600:1700:7BE0:8B50:0:0:0:44 (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recollections aren't relevant to WP. And this whole comment has nothing to do with the article's subject, Dana Milbank. Jibal (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dana_Milbank&oldid=1209059825"