Talk:Dina Powell

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dina Powell. 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/20150903000241/http://chicago.suntimes.com:80/news/7/71/915390/10000-small-businesses-program-marks-fourth-anniversary-bang to http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/915390/10000-small-businesses-program-marks-fourth-anniversary-bang
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Dina Powell is no longer married to Richard Powell. It is not well-documented, but it is nevertheless true. The first proof is unfortunately from a source that Wikipedia says is not reliable, but nevertheless it is correct.
http://heavy.com/news/2017/04/richard-c-powell-dina-husband-teneo-strategy-holding-bill-hillary-clinton-tie-ties-huma-abedin-jason-miller/
The following sources show that Dina's partner is now David McCormick: 
http://www.spring.st/dina-powell-white-house-appointment
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/dina-powell-goldman-sachs-joins-trump-233476
http://www.patrickmcmullan.com/site/search.aspx?t=person&s=Dina+Powell
And this is the true and correct information. Please do not change it back again.
38.111.104.223 (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Heavy is junk, Spring is junk, Politico could mean financial partner, photos with people at an affair mean nothing.  WP:BLP mandates a conservative approach here. 2600:1001:B127:BE07:2D38:7F2D:239A:ECD8 (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that a conservative approach is appropriate according to BLP, however, I disagree with you about how to carry out a conservative approach. There is no law that says that a Wikipedia article must declare someone's marital status. If there is a dispute, the conservative approach would be to leave it out. We agree there is a dispute here. Lets be logical about this: If she is married to Richard Powell, saying so is OK, and not saying so is also OK. It is not vital information about Ms. Powell. But what if she IS NOT married to Richard Powell, (which she IS NOT, based on several sources, including personal knowledge)-- then saying nothing about her being married is OK, BUT, saying she is married is false information, and embarrassing for the person the Wikipedia is about, which is what BLP is all about. "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page." I contend that the information about her marriage is the poorly sourced material. Outdated and incorrect. If you really want to be cautious and conservative, you would just leave out the information completely. 38.111.104.97 (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

text:  In addition, I just looked at your source, which I left up for the source for the daughter's years of birth, and it is from 2007, ten years ago!! That is not a reliable source when it comes to someone's marital status. How many people do you know who are still married ten years later??  38.111.104.97 (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Your personal knowledge doesn't count for anything - see the first paragraph of WP:V. You need to find a Washington Post story or something on CNN or something like that clearly states that she and Powell were divorced in 2014 or whenever you think it was. And you cannot wipe out her marriage completely and moving her children to the end denigrates her experiences as a working mother which she has talked about in WP:RS. 2600:1001:B00C:898:698A:874:B18E:260E (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marital status 

message: I noticed that there are currently quite a few references that consist only of bare URLs. Until most of these are fixed, should this article be tagged with a  template? Name goes here (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bare URLs 

message: I and another editor have been in a dispute over the placement of the section currently entitled "Marriage and family." I want the section to be renamed "Personal life" and placed near the bottom of the article, while another editor wants the section to remain as it is: 
Should my proposal for the section be endorsed? --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read WP:OSE? Is is just because of that or is there a BLP policy for this? The rationale doesn't violate those polices in any way I can see. They have not done original research on the fact that they married or had a family, nor has non neutral language been used. I could understand however WP:SYNTH concerns rising. A chronological order might be more appropriate in some cases. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The original research is not on whether she has a family or is married, but rather that, as a woman, her family life plays a much larger role in her life than that of a man ("women have to constantly balance career and family" -- this implies that men don't). I have not read WP:OSE, but I think that is a big reason for my position as well -- I think the article is better organized in the way I am proposing, and I don't see how a chronological order is better here. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on placement of family/personal life section 

message: *Support change. Most other biographical articles are organized this way, and I think it is a better organization. The opposing editor's rationale for keeping the section as it is was this: "women have to constantly balance career and family, and this is best understood by presenting chronologically." I oppose this rationale, because it violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV. I don't think the fact that Powell is a woman should play any factor in how the article is organized, and I have not seen any evidence that Powell has needed to balance career and family any more than men do (it may be the case, but such a claim needs to be backed up, but just stated or assumed). --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read WP:OSE? Is is just because of that or is there a BLP policy for this? The rationale doesn't violate those polices in any way I can see. They have not done original research on the fact that they married or had a family, nor has non neutral language been used. I could understand however WP:SYNTH concerns rising. A chronological order might be more appropriate in some cases. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The original research is not on whether she has a family or is married, but rather that, as a woman, her family life plays a much larger role in her life than that of a man ("women have to constantly balance career and family" -- this implies that men don't). I have not read WP:OSE, but I think that is a big reason for my position as well -- I think the article is better organized in the way I am proposing, and I don't see how a chronological order is better here. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: This article seems very, very promotional. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad I’m not the only one who noticed that—I mean, Jesus!—even her early life section is like a freaking Vanity Fair article.Trillfendi (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, Trillfendi. I'm a little surprised it's just the two of us noticing this. We could use some more consensus here to support corrective edits. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are not appreciating the subtleties of this article. If you read a wide range of regular media stories about Powell, you will find that she gets a lot of praise in them and not much criticism. This article reflects that, since it must reflect the balance of weight of RSes (and if you can find some criticism that the article is missing, please point to it here and it will be incorporated). But this is exactly the point. And ironically with respect to your comment, the sole use of Vanity Fair as a source in the article is to point this out exactly:  This is in line with her "managing up" abilities described in the Goldman Sachs section. She is undoubtedly talented; and a benefit to those who have employed her; and a living refutation of some of this administration's immigration policies; but what she is really talented at is getting herself portrayed as talented. An American story if ever there was one.  69.112.85.181 (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Your post, I must say, is almost as promotional as the article. You certainly do not seem neutral. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to place someone in context, which is kind of necessary for biographical writing. Do not confuse what I am saying with what I personally think. What I personally think is that if she has been well-received in her government positions, it is because she looked good by comparison within one administration that was barely competent (G. W. Bush) and looks great in comparison within one administration that is utterly incompetent (the current one). But regardless of what I think, she is not as good as her media coverage says she is, which is what the article tries to get across within the limits of what Wikipedia articles are allowed to say.  69.112.85.181 (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. There must be some way to work this out. Maybe, in the article, rather than singing her praises throughout the article, it could contain just the facts, and have a section that somewhat contains the praise, like a "recognition" section or something like that. It's just that the article stinks of praise, lots of it in quotes, like:  and  and  and  and  and  I mean, gimme a break. The article is fully of that. There's way more. Neutral? Me thinks not. I say, chop all that out. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you realize that the "The most remarkable thing about Dina Powell is that she can manage up better than anybody I’ve ever seen ..." quote is criticism, not praise. I suggest you leave that quote in. But in any case, I will not object further, go ahead and start chopping, no RfC necessary.  69.112.85.181 (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Chopping sounds good. Trillfendi, please, do the honours. Nobody has come here to object or discuss and we have our IP friend's blessings. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

text: (I can’t stand the Trumps worth a damn... but even Princess Ivanka’s article doesn’t have all the puffery.) I’ve said it before, it has absolutely nothing to do with what jobs she’s had and everything to do with how this article is worded. Heidi Cruz has also has a notable managing career at Goldman Sachs and in a Republican presidential administration, but there are no neutrality issues on her page. Anyway, I’ll add this to my to-do list.Trillfendi (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

text: I just added a COI tag.Trillfendi (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional prose 

message: Would a Requests for comment be appropriate here to decide if the article should be more neutral? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible requests for comment