Talk:Andrea Mitchell

Header

Not much info on her career, just incidents. The background info isn'r enough. Please improve this article. thanks. -Alan

can anyone document when she had her face lifts? Kingturtle 19:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Sean7phil 18:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Is she a republican - her husband certainly is?

Who was her first husband?

Religion

What relevance is it to put it in the infobox? It's not there for other TV journalists. Dogru144 04:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrea Mitchell, a 1963 graduate of New Rochelle (NY) High School was an accomplished second alto who performed as a soloist with the NRHS 'A' Choir, and was a member of Double Octet and All State Choir.

Washington Bureau

Did she succeed the late Tim Russert as NBC News Washington Bureau chief? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversy during Obama Campaign

This seems to violate Wikipedia:No original research. I am removing it and it can be restored when or if it gets sourced. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I did find sources but I didn't see the quote of what she originally said so it was left out. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

wawa scandal

I have added some sources for the criticism and ridicule Mitchell has come under for the incident. There is no question it exists. That some sources may not be reliable for some material hardly impeaches words verifiable in print and video. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No question the scandal exists? Sure, the newsbusters blog calls it a scandal. As repeatedly discussed with various user names trying to foist "scandals" reported at newsbusters, that is not a reliable source and one blog calling something a scandal is meaningless. Now let's look at the rest of those sources:

• First up, we have the Politico blog (now broken, here's a replacement link) which, quite pointedly, did NOT in ANY way connect this to Mitchell, the subject of this article. "The MSNBC clip feeds into the narrative, beloved by some on the left, that Romney is a 1950′s throwback. After the clip cut, Mitchell and MSNBC contributor Chris Cillizza broke out into laughter — which is understandable, given that they both had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine. In fact, what Romney found so “amazing” was the discord between private sector innovation and public sector bureaucracy." That's about all it had to say about Michell: She laughed at a clip which, as presented, made Romney look out of touch (seemingly amazed at the "touchtone keypad" touchscreens at Wawa. In fact, the source explained that her laughter was "understandable".
• Next, we have a copyright violation at youtube. As repeatedly discussed with various user names trying to foist "scandals" reported at newsbusters, Wikipedia does not knowingly link to copyright violations and the content of a news report does not demonstrate that there was a controversy about the content of that report.
• Finally, we have Fox News. Let's see how close they get to "Mitchell came under criticism and ridicule for presenting a flagrantly dishonest edit of comments made by Mitt Romney at a campaign stop in Pennsylvania and then mocking him." We have several charges here: "criticism and ridicule" of Mitchell, "a flagrantly dishonest edit" (somehow involving Mitchell, the topic of this article) and "mocking him" (Romney). Here is everything in that source that mentions or alludes to Mitchell: "...one of its highest-profile news anchors played manipulated video that made Mitt Romney appear out of touch with everyday voters..." Now, do we have "criticism and ridicule" of Mitchell? No, we have criticism of NBC. Do we have "a flagrantly dishonest edit" (somehow involving Mitchell)? No, we have "manipulated video" that she OHMYGOD! "played". Do we have her "mocking" Romney? No, the closest we have is in the Politico source where she "broke out into laughter -- which is understandable". I'd give this a little bit of time for the current user name using newsbusters to respond before yanking this, but it is currently a contentious claim regarding a living person. I am removing it, per WP:BLP. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the use of a newsbusters blogging "Controversy!" aimed at NBC with claims that the existence of video of a news report supports that the report was "controversial" has been repeatedly discussed elsewhere. See, for example Talk:Kelly O'Donnell. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not this should be included is open for debate, however there are some aspects that are factual and have been reported. Mitchell dishonestly played an edited video in order to make Romney's "suprise" regarding Wawa similar to that against GHWB's "shopping scanner" incident. Her presentation of the material was done to make Romney look out of touch with the average person and her comments leading into the presentation make this clear. Mitchell has not appologized for the deliberately misleading lead-in into the presentation. I doubt that this is going to completley go away. Arzel (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

She "dishonestly" played it? What planet did that take place on? Yes, she was on the show the video was played on. And she did it for what reason? It's amazing how you've gotten into her mind and read her motives. Her lead it was deliberately misleading? My, but you do have a creative streak. I know you doubt it will completely go away, but that's a moot point. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying that she is completely innocent of anything on her show, that she is little more than a paid prop to read a teleprompter? I didn't get into her mind, there are many sources that point out her dishonest reporting. I am a little suprised that you would defend this kind of misreprensentation of events. Arzel (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You are reading into what I said. I did not say what you think I said. I said that you are reading into what the sources said. They do not say what you think they say. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Some of the he above comments are quite emotional. You cannot remove an entire section by complaining that youtube is not a reliable source for a video which is open for all to see. (We also cannot assume that the material was posted without permission, but in any case the fact that Beck mocked Mitchell is indisputable.) If editors have problems with the wording, they should feel free to work on it. But wholesale repeated deletions for different excuses each time is edit warring and I intend to report the behavior if it repeats. μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I cannot remove an entire section of poorly sourced material making a contentious claim about a living person? Quite the contrary. We're supposed to do exactly that. (BLP violations are, in fact, the only specific exception to WP:3RR.) The video does not make a reasonable claim of copyright permission. In fact, it makes no claim at all. So, we're supposed to assume it is a copyright violation. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That she has been criticized is not a contentious claim about her. No one denies she has been, not evene her when she issued her correction the following night. Calling her a liar directly might be, but saying that others have criticized her when they have criticized her is simple fact. If you think liberal papers like the WaPo, Atlantic, HuffPo and NYMagazine don't reflect a balanced set of sources you can attribute the claims as per WP:ATTRIBUTE. But you certainly cannot delete the material. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BLP. The section contained numerous contentious claims about a living person which were not cited to reliable sources. Discussion of the actual material continues below. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added the Washington Post, The Atlantic, The Huffington Post and New York magazine as sources to the article. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Great! Let's take a look at those sources:

• Washington Post: "MSNBC and Andrea Mitchell are under fire"
• The Atlantic Wire opens with the follow up you've failed to note. In fact, that's the only thing the article says about Mitchell (remember her? she's the topic of this article).
• huffingtonpost.com: The headline? "MSNBC Romney Edit Draws Fire; Andrea Mitchell Briefly Addresses Controversy". This, remember, is in support of the claim that the controversy was about Mitchell... somehow. "MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell briefly addressed a controversy on Tuesday about the way her show had edited a clip of Mitt Romney." Yes, it's all so clear now... "The network came under fire for the way it edited comments..." Hmm, they forgot all about Mitchell's treachery... "The clip Mitchell showed..." OHMYGOD! THERE IT IS! THE SMOKING GUN! SHE @#$%ING "SHOWED" THE CLIP! Really? How, um, presenter-ish of her. "The pushback was swift, as conservatives and media writers accused MSNBC..." but they, um, forgot to accuse Mitchell? Then on to the second bit, that you haven't seen fit to mention.
• Fox News: "...one of its highest-profile news anchors played manipulated video that made Mitt Romney appear out of touch with everyday voters..." Wow! Such naked aggression! The venom! She "played" it!
• New York: "On her show today Andrea Mitchell dubbed the incident Romney's 'super market scanner moment.'" You have to read between the lines here... actually, you have to get loaded up on scotch, get in a creative mood and read something else entirely. That's the only time Mitchell is mentioned. Still, it cited for her "misrepresenting", which it does not say she did.
• Yeah, um that New York article? It's also used for the rest of the sentence right after "misrepresenting", supposedly in support of what she supposedly misrepresented: "comments made by Mitt Romney at a campaign stop in Pennsylvania and then mocking him for the invented gaffe." All of that from "On her show today Andrea Mitchell dubbed the incident Romney's 'super market scanner moment.'" Amazing. Before gulping down the scotch, fire up a few bowls, i guess.
• The same Fox News cite is now used to source, "The clip". Again, all it says about Mitchell (the topic of this article) is "...one of its highest-profile news anchors played manipulated video that made Mitt Romney appear out of touch with everyday voters...".
• The same huffingtonpost.com article again, still discussing what the show did, rather than Mitchell (the topic of this article).
• The same Washington Post blog, again, saying which blog first reported this. Still nothing about Mitchell, though. Credit where credit is due: this source actually says what it is cited as saying.
• Politico is also cited as a source for the name of the blog. Politico, BTW, says only one thing about Mitchell (the topic of this article), "After the clip cut, Mitchell and MSNBC contributor Chris Cillizza broke out into laughter — which is understandable, given that they both had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine." Curiously, you neglected to mention that.
• newsbuster.org, as repeatedly discussed, is a blog. It is not a source.

In summary, from the sources above, after limiting the discussion to Mitchell (the topic of this article), we have, "MSNBC and Andrea Mitchell came under fire[1] for a video the network had edited[2] in such a way that it appeared that Mitt Romney is not in touch with everyday voters.[3] Mitchell, who had been led to believe Romney was wowed a machine at a convenience store,[4] briefly address the controversy the following day.[5]" - SummerPhD (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Your sarcastic emotional tone and suggestion I abuse drugs is not well taken and it won't look good if this goes to administration. "Misrepresent" and "invent" are verbatim from the sources. The current wording is perfectly neutral and verifiable--we agree no verifiable source says she "had been led to believe" anything. Mitchell took responsibility for her own broadcast the following day and stood behind it, she didn't say the show aired in her name mislead her. Bozell's comments were broadcast on Fox news and his verbatim words are sourced in the ref from Fox, not Newsmax. Newsmax was given only as a source for the video, a primary source which Fox and Huffpost also provide. Likewise for politico. It is a redundant source supporting soopermexican's credit for revealing the scandal. The Washington Post says the same thing. Given your distaste for these unnecessary sources I will remove them. The are unnecessary as supoprts for the text as it stands. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the politico and newsmax sources as redundant, added the date of the incident and clarified the allusion to the GHWB super market scanner. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I encourage you to take this to whatever board you would like. I'd suggest either the BLP board or the reliable sources board. Hell, knock yourself out and go for an admin board.

Yes, a source does say that MSNBC "Misrepresents Romney Speech". This article is not about MSNBC. Saying Mitchell "misrepresented" anything in an unsourced contentious claim about a living person.

The same goes for "invents". The source says MSNBC not Mitchell.

No, we do NOT "agree that no verifiable source says she 'had been led to believe' anything". The Politico source, which you have now strangely decided to remove, directly says, "Mitchell and MSNBC contributor Chris Cillizza ... had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine."

Newsbusters, as repeatedly discussed on numerous talk pages and the reliable sources noticeboard, is not usable here.

Again, with sourcing for everything, and limiting ourselves to material about Mitchell (the subject of this article), we have, "MSNBC and Andrea Mitchell came under fire[6] for a video the network had edited[7] in such a way that it appeared that Mitt Romney is not in touch with everyday voters.[8] Mitchell, who had been led to believe Romney was wowed a machine at a convenience store,[9] briefly address the controversy the following day.[10]"

Should you choose to ignore this suggestion, I will replace your section with it. If you would like to specifically cite reliable sources speaking about Mitchell to add to this or claim that the sources I've cited do not say what I am claiming, I am more than willing to listen. If you post further claims without specifically citing the sources for each portion of your claim, I will simply reply that your addition is uncited. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The consensus opposes the view that this section should be deleted, or, barring that, references to the reason for the controversy be deleted in favor of just mentioning that Mitchell aired a show. I have restored the verbatim "misreprent" and "invent" so that readers will know why there is a scandal. I changed "for misrepresenting" (fact) to "as having misrepresented" (criticism). I have fixed the Wawa piping. The last two sentences are abrupt and need work. μηδείς (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious - misrepresented

The claim: "After a June 18, 2012 segment on her show Andrea Mitchell Reports, Mitchell came under criticism as having misrepresented...[11]" Fact: The source does NOT say Mitchell misrepresented anything, nor does it say that anyone made that claim. The source says, "MSNBC Misrepresents Romney Speech, Invents Wawa ‘Gaffe’". Discuss.- SummerPhD (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As there has been no response, I've fixed this to match what the sources actually say. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious - under criticism

The claim: "Mitchell came under criticism[12][13][14][15] Fact: Four sources are given, clearly implying that Mitchell was widely criticized. The first three sources clearly single out MSNBC, NOT Mitchell. Of the numerous sources presented in the contentious history of this claimed controversy, that last source, Fox News, is the only source that clearly states Mitchell was criticized. All of the rest clearly hang this on MSNBC. The Politico source, one of the first ones ever cited in this section, specifically and directly exonerated Mitchell. After I pointed this out, that source was removed. In a fair and balanced kinda way. Discuss. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As there had been no response, I fixed this. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggested section content, still not discussed

I have suggested: ""MSNBC and Andrea Mitchell came under fire[16] for a video the network had edited[17] in such a way that it appeared that Mitt Romney is not in touch with everyday voters.[18] Mitchell, who had been led to believe Romney was wowed a machine at a convenience store,[19] briefly address the controversy the following day.[20]" There still have not been any comments on this suggestion. Does it misrepresent any of the sources? Which ones and how? Is there any reliably sourced material about Mitchell missing? What and which sources present the material? Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your changes or interpretation. Your calls for discussion after having deleted the section wholesale seem inconsistent. In any case, you have read mine and Arzel's comments above. I remind you the show is called Andrea Mitchell Reports and unless you find a reliable source saying she said she was misled her second-day clarification implies she takes full responsibility for her actions. Please update us when you find such a source. μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Your new claim seems to say that what sources say the network did somehow applies to her because of the name of the show. Please discuss this in the two "Dubious" sections above. Additionally, please explain what you feel this section gets wrong or omits, citing sources for each issue. Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

AM did not address the controversy, or even acknowledge that she did anything wrong. She said that the RNC noted that Romney had more to say about the visit so she aired a few more seconds of the visit without any comment. I am actually quite suprised that AM has not yet done a Mea Culpa on this since the deception is clear and she has yet to even note that what she did was wrong. But then I suppose since Romney is a Republican there is little outcry from most of the media to even note just how blatently biased her report was. Arzel (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That you believe "what she did was wrong", the "deception is clear", liberal bias in the media, etc. are all moot points with no relation whatsoever to what we should or should not include in this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You did not address my first two sentences regarding you previous comment, they are factual statements backed up by the sources and not my opinion. Only the last sentence is my opinion, but c'mon, are you really defending her actions here? I've not seen anyone in the media defend what she did, at most it has been ignored, but all that have commented on it have come to the same conclusion. AM aired a deceptively edited video designed to make Romney look out of touch or like an imbecile, and she did not appologize or even acknowledge that she did anything wrong in the least. Arzel (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

They are not "factual". Claim: "AM did not address the controversy". Fact: Yes, she did.[21] Claim: "or even acknowledge that she did anything wrong." Fact: Reliable sources do not say that she did anything wrong. Claim: I did not address "She said that the RNC noted that Romney had more to say about the visit so she aired a few more seconds of the visit without any comment." Fact: What's to address? - SummerPhD (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious - laughing at him for the invented gaffe

The claim: "(Mitchell) laugh(ed) at him for the invented gaffe.http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/06/msnbc-misquotes-romney-invents-wawa-gaffe.html" Fact: The source cited does not say Mitchell "laughed at him". In fact, the source cited doesn't even mention laughter. The only thing this particular source says about Mitchell is, "On her show today Andrea Mitchell dubbed the incident Romney's 'super market scanner moment.'" There is nothing remotely related to what the source is cited for. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you are on about. The reference is added to support the fact that the supposed gaffe was invented by the editing--not the fact that she laughed at the gaffe, which is evident from the primary source of the video and requires no separate source. Given the rewording by Canoe1967 I have removed the dubiouses.μηδείς (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The source does not say or show that she laughed at Romney. While having her laugh "at Romney" supports your idea of her attacking him, it is not in the source. As you have not responded to the other two "dubious" tags (detailed above), should we assume you agree with the analysis presented there? - SummerPhD (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed Canoe1967's edit inserting MSNBC since it implied MSNBC had laughed at Romeny, not Mitchell and her guest. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed your "fix" as the source does not say that anyone laughed at anyone. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious - mocked

The source given for "she mocked presidential candidate Mitt Romney" does not say she mocked anyone. The only thing Mitchell does in the source is "(suppose) that the comments could be Romney’s 'supermarket scanner moment.'" Discuss. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Entire section is dubious

It now turns out that Mitchell had virtually nothing to do with the clip. She played it, apparently unaware that it was out of context ("Mitchell...broke out into laughter -- which is understandable, given that they both had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine."[22]), laughed and, in response to accusations by "conservatives and media writers"[23] later played the full clip. Much of the discussion here defending strongly worded edits (ironically taking words from sources out of context) has hinged on claims that Mistchell was or did this, that or the other thing. It now turns out the video did not originate on Andrea Mitchell Reports. It came from MSNBC's Way Too Early with Willie Geist. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't believe that for a second. If she really had nothing to do with it then why has she yet to appologize or even acknowledge that it was misleading and done with the intent to make Romney look like an inbecile? Her non-action speaks quite loudly. Arzel (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Your refusal to believe what a reliable source reports (that it did not originate with Andrea Mitchell Reports) and your unsourced claims regarding intent and what you feel the absence of evidence is evidence of are all moot points. We do not have reliable sources saying "She must appologize!" We do not have reliable sources saying that it was deliberately misleading. We do not have reliable sources saying that absence of evidence is evidence that she is the evil spawn of Satan intent on destroying all that is right and good with the world (a.k.a. Romney). What we have is a section that started out as a very poorly sourced attack on Mitchell for is now seems to be barely related to her in any way. She aired a clip from another show and "broke out into laughter -- which is understandable, given (she) had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine."[24]- SummerPhD (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That is quite Orwellian logic you are spinning here. I suppose by next week it would have not even happened on her show and by the week after that not even on MSNBC. Arzel (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a great idea! I'll have to get the rest of the anti-Romney cabal together for a good old fashioned history editing party. After all, we can't let the record reflect that Michell aired a clip and understandably laughed at it. I'll head on down to the WaWas and use the touchtone keypads to order up some meatball subs with pickles. It'll be great! - SummerPhD (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

On an unrelated question, why do you repeatedly say which is understandable with regards to AM comments? Are supposedly neutral reporters supposed to bust into laughter when presented with something that they think makes the subject look like a moron? I'll remember to look for those reports of Obama's gaffes by AM in the future. Arzel (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not say it. The reliable source says it.[25] Interesting fact: That source was originally tortured into supporting the outrageous BLP violation that was originally here. When I pointed out that the source said her reaction was "understandable" given what she had "been led to believe" that source was removed as "redundant" by your associate, Medeis/"μηδείς". - SummerPhD (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

SummerPhd, Believe what you want to about your sacred Mitchell. No apology was made by her that I know of, so it is impossible for you to assume whether she deliberately manipulated the clip or if she was just that negligent in reporting the news. Either way, if she's not sorry she did it, she's probably sorry that she got caught. Let's stop protecting her with assumptions that she "allegedly" didn't know what she was doing. It's only her job to know! hykos (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You believe she deliberately manipulated a clip, gave it to the earlier show, then used it on her show? Wow, that's one busy woman! - SummerPhD (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't see the irony? Andrea Mitchell wanted to point out someone's gaffe. The bigger gaffe is one which was manufactured by her, and her employer. You've never heard of guilt by association? You're giving her a free pass for some reason, but it is clear to me that she either had malicious intentions, or her emploer did. either way, she shouldn't be reporting on the news because she has a responsibility and she doesn't fact check. This isn't her first controversy, either. You want to delete this section, but it is apparently her claim to fame. If she weren't so controversial, I might not know who she is.hykos (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see that you think there is irony. What is truly ironic is the way you are creating facts to support your claim that Mitchell is being somehow dishonest. "Mitchell wanted..."? How do you know what she wanted? "...manufactured by her..."? None of the sources say anything of the sort. In fact, we know the clip came from another show entirely. "...she...had malicious intentions..."? This is an unsourced, libelous claim. "...she shouldn't be reporting the news because she doesn't fact check."? This one is hilarious! You expect ONE PERSON to fact check all of the news that fits into that show? Really? "...this section...is apparently her claim to fame."? Yeah, I'm sure. That's why we have so many independent reliable sources about her that predate this "controversy" that barely involves her. "If she weren't so controversial, I wouldn't know who she is." You might need to get out of the house more. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't expect Mitchell to be at every single stump speech or to digest all its material correctly all the time. But since (redacted WP:BLP violation), and since she is getting paid to interpret speeches, and decides (redacted WP:BLP violation), she is liable for her mistake. I like to hold people accountable for their words. this section is staying. it would be no different from fox news making up false claims and their reputation getting called out on it all the time, or a talk show making up statistics. I get so mad when I see these obvious misrepresentation of fact. you do not need to give her a free pass just because she wears her agenda on her sleeve which attracts more negative attention than you would like, or because she even ran a retraction. she got caught! of course she did a retraction. it's called damage control. and the more damage control you singularly do on her wikipedia page, the more you make it look like a cover up. That's why I said I don't know who she is otherwise. it is the only thing marking her relevance right now. Maybe I have to get out of the house more like you said so that I can expose myself to more (redacted WP:BLP violation). i certainly don't want to be that guy that edits a wikipedia page 25 times in one day just to make myself feel like I'm the only one who's right around here. wiki is supposed to be a neutral consensus, and you are running it like it's your own. that is not what it is intended for. let's report the whole truth, and not give her or msnbc the benefit of the doubt. this is a repeat offense for both parties, and if you think it wasn't deliberate, then you are giving her way too much leeway.hykos (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Please review our policy on biographies of living persons. Your repeated unsourced contentious claims are a problem. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Please don't redact all my claims. All I said was, in theory, that I might not want to "expose myself to the lies of the likes of Andrea Mitchell." I did not have to pretend Andrea Mitchell was involved in a liar scandal and subsequent backpedaling instead of apologizing to make my statements accurate, but nevertheless is true. when you cited the Biographies of Living Persons, are you referring to the neutral point of view? please be specific... i have read the whole policy and do not understand which details you are correctly adhering to that I am not.hykos (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)