Talk:Dana Bash

message: I understand there is some question about Dana Bash's reporting that has been raised by Ron Paul's PAC.  Such material probably is important enough to be in this article, but it is at least as important-- and truthfully, more so-- that such material be well sourced, and meet Wikipedia's standards for Neutral Point of View.  This is particularly true as the subject of this article is a living person; WP:BLP also applies. -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Have added a short bit. Struggled to make it sound neutral, as CNN haven't commented their side yet, but I found a short quotation from a spokesperson in a politico report (linked to) which said "all is fine," so have stuck that in. Wikiditm (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem here is weight more than neutrality - this is an article about her life and career, and the importance of this one matter  is highly questionable in terms of her whole life. I understand that Ron Paul supporters think it is highly important, but I think this is way out of proportion for her article. Has this affected her career in any way?   The article should give more information about her overall career, with this matter perhaps boiled down to one or two sentences - if included at all. And we tend to try to avoid sections called "Controversies" - if there are valid, notable matters, they should be incorporated into the text. I am inclined to remove this section entirely at this point, pending it reaching some level of notability. Has anything more been said about this?  Tvoz/talk 05:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Tvoz. Telco (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks as though it's died down. My initial bit was just a paragraph, it's now become its own section which beats her entire career in terms of length. The controversy never came to anything in the end in terms of media coverage. I'm for removing it entirely now but maybe with one line saying "in 2011 she was criticized by a superPAC for alleged bias." Wikiditm (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree. I have axed the entire section in favour of a single sentence mentioning the controversy. Hope this is ok.Wikiditm (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I performed a search on google news. Of the 170 results for Dana Bash, less than 10 refer to RevolutionPAC. I'm just not buying that this is a big deal. Literally nothing came of it. No formal charges, the Paul campaign said everything's fine, CNN said everything's fine, all we have here is a group of fans that are swinging the lead. Lines like 'Some Paul supporters point to the strange timing of the "technical difficulties" as being intentional' are particularly inappropriate for a wikipedia article. That this total non-event is given its own section (which takes more space than the entire section on her career) is insane. I really think the single line in the intro is a better choice here Wikiditm (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree completely. I initially added in the section as it was news at the time, but it ended up never coming to anything. The section has now expanded to a monstrosity. It is 2 paragraphs long, outstripping the length allocated to her entire career, and gives next to no important information at all. I've tried editing the section out, and replacing it with "In 2012 she was involved in controversies concerning alleged bias against presidential candidate Ron Paul," as a sentence at the end of the opening paragraph. However, when I do that, my edit gets reverted by unregistered members. Someone should really semi-protect this page. Wikiditm (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ron Paul PAC 

message: This page is STILL seeing major edits from unregistered users. It should really be at least semi-protected. Wikiditm (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: The sentence saying Dana Bash has been involved "in a number of controversies" related to Ron Paul seems very strange. Wouldn't more specificity be better? Something like "Ron Paul supporters called for her to he fired after she made on-air comments they interpreted as biased against Paul." Although really personally I don't think it belongs in the article at all: it's not at all unusual for journalists covering politics to be accused of bias by supporters of the people they cover.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B00D:3C2D:AC0B:531B:3852:71E0 (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ron Paul controversies sentence 

message: She seems to be most knowledgeable. Would their paths crossed-career wise?--Wikipietime (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sean Spicer Paths crossed 

message: Are Dana Bash and John King divorced by now?  People rely on Wikipedia for information and you should be up to date on things like this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B024:CE:F09E:BE76:E382:AA75 (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update Needed