Jump to content

Talk:Dina Powell

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

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) 08:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marital status

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Stumbled across an existing source in the article - http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/326436-meet-president-trumps-ms-fix-it The Hill (definitely a WP:RS) from March 2017, see the Update at the end - that does indeed confirm that Powell is no longer married. So that has been added in. 2600:1001:B02F:8E83:BE:496E:ED71:2E5A (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bare URLs

[edit]

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 {{linkrot}} template? Name goes here (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on placement of family/personal life section

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a strong consensus to support the change. To maintain consistency across the style(s) followed at a majority of BLP articles.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 15:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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: [1]

Should my proposal for the section be endorsed? --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Options:

  • Support change
  • Oppose change, status quo is better

Comments

[edit]
  • 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."[2] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Opposed - to this specific edit. Currently this is ordered in a chronological fashion - with "personal life" split between several sections (including "early life and education", perhaps a few bits elsewhere). I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to having a personal life at the end (or beginning) - but it should combine all or most personal aspect - not just the marriage section. Looking at the article - I would be in favor of merging the very short marriage/kids section into early life, and renaming that into personal life - the loss of chronological order vs. her intership wouldn't be a "big deal" - and it would all be bunched in one section. I don't think that "early life & education" in the beginning, and "personal life" at the end jives well - that's better for after-retirement pre-death later activities (for older BLPs or deceased - not the case here)Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed - Don't get fixated on what I wrote in my edit summary (although it is still true as a general rule, even in these modern times) - chronological ordering is better in general, for men as well as women - you can see the course their whole lives take, in sequence. 2600:1001:B01B:F6A3:7842:E37D:DE3B:79E9 (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Most BLPs are structured with a Personal life section at the end of the article. The new section should also be expanded with content covering well her "personal life", not just "marriage and family". Meatsgains (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change to be consistent with majority of BLPs. Odd that the current "Marriage and family" section is so high up on the page. Personal life encompasses more than just familial ties, and you never see a non-married person's BLP with a "Single life and family" section. Kerdooskis (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (Summoned by bot) Typically "personal life" sections are at the bottom of articles. The odd arrangement of placing it toward the top is not only unusual but can be interpreted as sexist. Coretheapple (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (Summoned by bot) The sections should all be combined at the bottom. L3X1 (distænt write) 13:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As for the title, "Personal life" is typically what these sections are called. As for its placement, this subsidiary trivia is stuck right in the middle of the events in her life that are associated with her notability. It may be chronologically correct, but that isn't the logic bio articles normally follow here. It should be at the end, above the references. I'm also sort of wondering why it's our business how much they paid for their condo. (I know real estate sales are a matter of public record, but it seems rather nosy for an encyclopedia article.) Largoplazo (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - go with consistency using similar BLPs such as Susan Rice, James L. Jones, and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Atsme📞📧 17:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Most if not all articles go with Personal life so I don't see why this article should be any different, Although the placement of this section varies from article to article - Some will have it up top and some will have it down the bottom. –Davey2010Talk 14:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dina Powell's two Trump White House jobs

[edit]

To avert more edit warring, I'm taking this to the Talk page, 2600:1001:B022:8259:6CC0:19E3:4AD0:5420, and would like Emir of Wikipedia to adjudicate. Basically I contend that Powell's original title "Assistant to the President and Senior Counselor for Economic Initiatives" must be considered past and the language of the article should reflect that she only holds one role in the White House at present. 2600:1001:B022:8259:6CC0:19E3:4AD0:5420 has added a number of articles where journalists have been told that Powell will continue with some of the portfolio from her "Economic Initiatives" role (which often happens when a staffer switches jobs inside of a White House -- for instance, when Phil Schiliro became "Special Advisor" in 2011 he still had significant oversight of Legislative Affairs where he had previously been Director). On the other hand, we have the legally-mandated report to Congress on White House staff titles and salary, which requires the White House to accurately report the title and salary of every employee -- which clearly lists only the title "Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy". She may have originally held the title "Assistant to the President and Senior Counselor for Economic Initiatives" between February and March, but we now definitely know that it is no longer her title -- no one has that title in the White House right now, or it would have to be reported to Congress. The article should not imply that she is doing both jobs -- One job no longer exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdasdasdff (talk • contribs) 01:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is beside the point, but it is also COMPLETELY ABSURD to list her "Senior Counselor" role as successor to the John Podesta / Pete Rouse Counselor role. Podesta and Rouse were "Counselor to the President" which is a White House role with historical significance, generally with cabinet rank, which is a peer to the Chief of Staff, and sits above all other Assistants to the President and outside the White House chain of command. The Trump administration uses the term "Counselor" and "Advisor" interchangeably which has lead to a lot of confusion in people trying to parse "Senior Advisor to the President" and "Counselor to the President". Too many people who have never been inside the White House, who don't know anything about the way the White House works, are making these judgments based on things they read in Politico -- and it's degrading the quality of the information that Wikipedia visitors are getting when they want to learn about this part of our government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdasdasdff (talk • contribs) 01:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know when she stopped being "Assistant to the President and Senior Counselor for Economic Initiatives" as I have not seen any source mention a date for that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, your intended version of the article - which can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dina_Powell&oldid=799690361 and several other edits before that - has an infobox that eliminates her Economic Initiatives job completely and suggests that she joined the administration on March 15 as Deputy National Security Advisor. That is patently untrue. 2600:1001:B022:8259:6CC0:19E3:4AD0:5420 (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Second, I agree that listing Podesta as a predecessor makes no sense. People get carried away with this predecessor/successor stuff sometimes. 2600:1001:B022:8259:6CC0:19E3:4AD0:5420 (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Third, you give way too much import to this salary report. This administration is full of staffers with no government experience who have already shown in many respects that they have no clue as to what they are doing. (This is not a partisan statement – many Republicans in Congress would say the same thing.) Wikipedia discourages over reliance on primary sources for just this reason. You need a secondary source to know how much weight to give the primary. 2600:1001:B022:8259:6CC0:19E3:4AD0:5420 (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However, to the extent to which the salary report can be relied upon, there are three examples of people having two jobs listed - John A Eisenberg, Marcia L Kelly, and Paul L Winfree. That supports you more than me. 2600:1001:B022:8259:6CC0:19E3:4AD0:5420 (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But again, this administration is administratively incompetent. The official NSC page at https://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc still has no contents. There is still no official government photo of Dina Powell published for either of her roles, with the result that this article has to run with a top photo from the GWB administration. 2600:1001:B022:8259:6CC0:19E3:4AD0:5420 (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that this question does not even have an answer. Because she did not leave government service, and because her main role is clearly the second one, people in the administration may not even know or agree upon whether she still holds her first title. 2600:1001:B022:8259:6CC0:19E3:4AD0:5420 (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the thoughtful responses. The Trump admin incompetence aside, the annual report is prepared and vetted by career civil servants in the HR team and the general counsel of the EOP Office of Administration -- not Trump political appointees. It is required by law to accurately describe the names, titles, and salary of all personnel. Other examples for what it looks like when a White House staffer has two simultaneous roles can be seen in the 2016 report--
Valerie Jarret - "Senior Advisor" and "AP for Public Engagement & Intergovernmental Affairs"
Yohannes Abraham - "DAP for Public Engagement & Intergov Affairs" and "Senior Advisor for NEC"
Marvin Nicholson - "Trip Director" and "Personal Aide to the President"
Sarah Hurwitz - "Advisor to the Council on Women and Girls" and "Senior Presidential Speechwriter"
Her original job can be listed from Jan 20 through March, but is clearly not held concurrent with her Deputy National Security Advisor role. I guess I'm fine with keeping it in the officeholder box, even though it's a made up title, not a real office. Previous holder should be "position established" and successor should be "position abolished". Also, since when did we start listing the National Security Advisor as "Leader" inside the Deputy National Security Advisor's officeholder box?
In general, there are no announcements for most staff departures or internal role changes at the White House. When these stories appear in the press, it's usually either a formal White House press release about an office or issue considered important, or the officeholder has released a statement to a friendly journalist to get a nice puff piece that tells their version of the story. The press coming out of the current White House is not credible. For example, Hope Hicks insists to journalists that she is "interim Communications Director" but the White House announces her as "Communications Director" and the White House is not currently searching for another replacement. Everything you see in the political press right now about this administration is spin from someone inside of the administration. Dina Powell saying that she is holding onto her economic role is spin that both the White House and Powell agree on -- it makes her look more influential and it makes the situation look less chaotic. But it's just spin. The spin stops at legally mandated reports to Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdasdasdff (talk • contribs) 17:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
People with "made-up titles" are sometimes more powerful than people in established offices, so it can't be ignored. But for one-off positions I would omit predecessor/successor altogether - they don't really apply. 2600:1001:B022:8259:6CC0:19E3:4AD0:5420 (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for spin about Powell's influence, who knows? Given the scarcity of people with government experience there, it is quite possible that she does have influence in multiple areas. 2600:1001:B022:8259:6CC0:19E3:4AD0:5420 (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She certainly has influence across many areas of the White House, though as you said it is difficult to know the extent -- fortunately the issue of influence isn't really relevant here. This is a discussion about a discrete title -- which is completely knowable and provable, and is proven by the official report. She only has one current title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdasdasdff (talk • contribs) 00:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So can we fix this errors on the article now? The facts are clear, and the current article is delivering false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.132.212.103 (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional prose

[edit]

This article seems very, very promotional. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: Vanity Fair noted Powell's continued skills in getting praiseworthy treatment in high-profile media outlets.[100] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: "We immediately recognized her brains and her ability, and then her charm, and finally, I think somebody noticed she was gorgeous, too." and " “She has get-it-done skills. That is exactly her strong suit. She’s a doer.”" and " for giving her the chance to be a successful working mother." and "probably one of the most talented people I've ever met in my life." and "Powell was then named partner in 2010,[9] thus achieving one of the most highly sought-after prizes in American finance" and " "The most remarkable thing about Dina Powell is that she can manage..." 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
I just added a COI tag.Trillfendi (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible requests for comment

[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dina_Powell&oldid=1257337412"