Jump to content

Talk:Scott McClellan

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

Date of birth

[edit]

He is described as age 35 in this article (10 july 2003) and this article (23 september 2003). If my arithmetic is correct, he was born between 24 september 1967 and 10 july 1968. Tim Ivorson 19:47, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

165.247.218.75. Thanks for adding McClellan's birth year to the article. I have changed the categories to reflect his date of birth. Tim Ivorson 10:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That sounds right. He and I were in the same class in sixth grade; almost all children in our class were born between 1 September 1967 and 31 August 1968. We were pretty good friends; unfortunately I don't remember (if I ever knew) when his birthday is. --Angr 15:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Plame scandal

[edit]

The article needs to be updated in light of McClellan's role in the unfolding Plame scandal, as spokesman for the White House and as a grand jury witness himself. We ought to include a few quotes from McClellan about his colleagues Rove and Libby from September and October 2003, when he proclaimed their innocence and called their involvement in the leak "ridiculous" and "not true". Contrast this to his "we do not comment on ongoing investigations" stance after July 11, 2005, and all of his hand-over-heart proclamations to the White House Press Corps from that point on that he (at least) is personally honest. Shariputra 18:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would a quotes section work?

[edit]

I think McClellan, who I personally think has the most thankless job in the White House, has probably some quote-worthy deflections. They're already becoming a part of the pop culture lexicon, particularly on shows like The Daily Show. Bobak 17:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Press Secretary

[edit]

Nickname suggestion

[edit]

Mc Mc Mc Mc

Van Slyke

Kenji Yamada 22:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Undue criticism

[edit]

A relatively new editor has repeatedly inserted the following text (with my correction to the citation):

The high profile, frequently contrarian pundit Christopher Hitchens, after reading McClellan's book proposes, amongst other matters, a profit motive behind McClellan's current "tell-all" and commented, "So it goes with the ludicrous figure of Scott McClellan. I used to watch this mooncalf blunder his way through press conferences and think, Exactly where do we find such men? For the job of swabbing out the White House stables, yes. But for any task involving the weighing of words? Hah! ... the talentless McClellan is currently so far out of his depth. For one thing, he doesn't supply anything that can really be called evidence. For another, having not noticed any "propaganda machine" at the time he was perspiring his way through his simple job, he has a clear mercenary interest in discovering one in retrospect." A Tale of Two Tell-Alls : If you want to read a serious book about the intervention in Iraq, look to Douglas Feith

This text is unsuitable for inclusion for several reasons. The quote is excessively long, dedicating entirely too much weight to an unconnected critic, violating WP:UNDUE. The presentation is completely one sided, violating WP:NPOV. There may also be WP:BLP concerns, as there are some very disparaging comments. Given that there is an explicit advertisement for a competing product, I don't see how it's possible that this can be included. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing "disparaging" there --silly (violating WP:NPOV) accusation itself. It's literary technique using metaphoric language to emphasize the writers overall impressions about the man and his book. There is no "advertisement" or "competing" product. Another illogical straw man assertion. It's merely the title of the article. Try reading in future. (Archilles last stand (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I think that some of the language needs changed, and the selection should be reduced, but Hitchens' comments still warrant mentioning. Trilemma (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Outright namecalling and insults, as well as the other problems mentioned above, make this unsuitable for inclusion. I've removed once more; if we need to call an RFC on this issue I'm confident the community will agree that the comments are over the top and violate WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and should not be included. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blaxthos WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, continues to vandalise the newly trimmed, quite moderate, Slate magazine source, and commentary from Christopher Hitchens, and is POV pushing once again. Blaxthos, please desist from further inflaming Wiki editors, engaging in edit wars and your current unproductive disprutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.36.252 (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think this criticism needs to be added but shortened. I'll try my best to do so and add it to the article. PokeHomsar (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added it, but I have trouble with references... I don't know how to add them.PokeHomsar (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense to the creators of this article, but there is practically no content on the individual. There is the most unimportant personal data in the beginning, then cut to the book - or rather, past the book, where the article ponderously gives everyone who was surprised/offended by it a quote. Just a terrible, shoddy, information-free entry.

Suggestion: His job detail, what significant quotes he may have had during his time working, what he has done in his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.32.249 (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Senate testimony

[edit]

I believe that we should mention McClellan's upcoming voluntary Senate testimony. I know it's been covered on MSNBC and elsewhere. I also think it's germane to mention that the Senate report issued last week pretty much corroborated the claims made in What Happened, though I'm unsure of the exact place (here and/or there) and verbiage necessary. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

[edit]

Due to recent edit warring, this page has been protected for 4 days. Please use the time to establish a consensus on what should and should not be included on the page. If you reach a consensus before the expiry of the time, you can make a listing at WP:RFPU for unprotection.

Please also refrain from using the term "vandalism" to refer to material that is merely the subject of a content dispute. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion here. Also please note that the account in question has been blocked for a month. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

[edit]

I have removed the cherry-picked quotes. While we must mention his testimony and relevant information from his appearance before the Senate, the impression given by highlighting those quotes mischaracterizes the message he delivered. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being that you concede that some of these are relevant, instead of removing the entire section, it'd be better to decide on which quotes from those edits to keep, while adding whatever relevant quotes there are from McClellan's testimony. Trilemma (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

[edit]

While I'm not going to oppose the second part of this edit, I want to note that it's not because the "body language expert doesn't cut it", but only because it's an unsourced statement (though on second thought, we could probably attribute it to O'Reilly's broadcast). O'Reilly's expressed intent during that interview was to paint McClellan as a liar; the fact that his own expert contradicted that assertion is quite relevant. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's your subjective take on what O'Reilly was trying to do. Besides, spending much time on O'Reilly's reaction to McClellan's book is questionable in terms of WP:Due. Spending any time on his "body language expert's" reaction to the book (or to McClellan's interviews about it) is definitely WP:UNDUE.

It can be sourced to the transcript from the O'Reilly interview. I would argue it is very relevant. O'Reilly brought the expert on to evaluate McClellan's credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.132.52 (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scott McClellan. 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) 14:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scott McClellan. 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) 05:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_McClellan&oldid=1208903054"