Talk:Dan Senor

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

Language skills[edit]

"he was widely criticized in that role for his inability to speak Arabic [1] [2]." The offers of proof for this statement are links to a blog post written by and an interview of Rajiv Chandrasekaran. Two links to statements by the same person should not constitute or justify the "widely criticized" statement. I'm going to edit the page to say "some criticized" unless and until someone can find other instances of criticism. --Carl Von Clausewitz (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Run for Senate?[edit]

I noticed a story on blogs today that Dan Senor is running for Senate, but there is no confirmation. I don't know if this is OK to add just yet, but I decided against it for now. If he does actually announce I don't think it will take long to be added then. --Stargat (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs, no - NYT (story yesterday) - yes; I'm adding some brief text and a link. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was Dan Senor a White House deputy press secretary?[edit]

On 3/17 another reverted[1] a change I had made to the Dan Senor Wikipedia page. This editor had added a mention that Senor was supposedly a deputy press secretary from the Washington Monthly, which stated[2]: "Senor left Carlyle in 2003 for a brief stint as White House Press Secretary Scott McLellan's deputy before shipping off to Iraq."

But I am nearly certain this is incorrect, and that this is a reporting error by the Washington Monthly. First of all, the Senor article currently says Senor joined the White House under McClellan in "early 2003" but Scott McClellan did not become press secretary until July 2003, when Senor had then been in Iraq for several months. The Monthly also spells McClellan's name wrong, which casts some doubt on the carefulness of this report. The reason I mentioned the New York Times story[3] is because that article is clearly the more-closely reported story, with access to Senor, and it does not mention a stint as White House press secretary. Wouldn't this be included there? Also, the only other mentions I can find[4] of Senor at the White House are blogs and wikis like SourceWatch. How plausible is it that there would be no mention anywhere else?

I think the Washington Monthly is reputable but their reporting here is not very deep, and it is an outlier. So I think this should be considered poorly sourced, at least thinkly sourced and I believe it should be removed in line with BLP unless another source can be found. I found agreement with John Broughton here about this and so I will change it now. --Ten Thousand Bullets (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Senor's role in Iraq?[edit]

Is criticism of Senor's role in Iraq permitted in this article? The following was removed from the article:

For his service, he was awarded the Department of Defense Distinguished Civilian Service Award, one of the Pentagon’s highest civilian honors. However, critics claimed that Senor failed in his advisory role. Wrote Maureen Dowd, "As the spokesman for Paul Bremer during the Iraq occupation, Mr. Senor helped perpetrate one of the biggest foreign policy bungles in U.S. history. The clueless desert viceroys summarily disbanded the Iraqi Army, forced de-Baathification, stood frozen in denial as thugs looted ministries and museums, deluded themselves about the growing insurgency and misled reporters with their Panglossian scenarios of progress. 'Off the record, Paris is burning,' Mr. Senor told a group of reporters a year into the war. 'On the record, security and stability are returning to Iraq.'"[1]

The article notes that he was awarded the Department of Defense Distinguished Civilian Service Award for his time in Iraq, but his time in Iraq was also the subject of much criticism. That criticism should go in this article too. Chisme (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chisme. WP:POV notes the following
Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.
The article http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2012/09/17/Maureen-Dowd-Neocons-slither-back-Romney-and-Ryan-are-taking-their-cues-from-hawks-who-got-it-wrong-the-last-time/stories/201209170223 violates this section of Wikipedia's policies regarding a biography for a living person, and should not be included in the article. Further, nowhere in the previously listed article does the author state, "For his service, he was awarded the Department of Defense Distinguished Civilian Service Award, one of the Pentagon’s highest civilian honors. However, critics claimed that Senor failed in his advisory role." In fact, nowhere in the article does it ever mention Mr. Senor in a positive manner, I think we can at least agree on that. Should criticism regarding Senor's role in Iraq be included in this article? Of course. But only if it comes from a credible source that does not clearly violate WP:BLP. With that being said I am removing the quote again. BestComatmebro ~Come at me~ 04:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How does Dowd's quote violate the Wikipedia policy regarding biographies of living persons? That policy doesn't preclude putting quotes in articles that are critical of living persons. Senor is a public igure. Of course people are going to criticize him. And he was an architect of the War in Iraq, which needless to say has come under all kinds of criticisms. As such, I think the Dowd quote is justified. As for Dowd being a credible source, she's a New York Times writer, which definitely qualifies her as credible. Are you suggesting that no judgements critical of Senior should be in this article? I'm going to re-include a shorter version of Dowd's quote.Chisme (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the point. The article from which that quote comes from is completely biased and includes nothing but slander against Senor's work in Iraq. Had this quote come from an article written by Dowd that presents the case for Senor's role in Iraq in a balanced, non MSNBC like-way, I would say it should absolutely be included. I am not saying Dowd as a writer is an unreliable source I am saying her article is an unreliable source. It is a complete slam piece against Senor. Under the guidelines of WP:BLP, WP:V notes "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." These claims against Senor are exceptional, and if they are indeed true they need to come from articles that present the facts regarding Senor's role and impact in Iraq in a more professional manner. Am I suggesting "no judgements critical of Senor should be in this article?" No, absolutely not and I'm not sure how you could possibly misinterpret my words when I stated in my previous comment "Should criticism regarding Senor's role in Iraq be included in this article? Of course." Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 22:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see Dowd's article as a "slam"; on the contrary, it's on-point criticism. From the article: "Mr. Senor is emblematic of how much trouble America blundered into in the Middle East -- trillions wasted, so many lives and limbs lost -- because of how little we fathom the culture and sectarian politics. We're still stumbling in the dark. We not only don't know who our allies and enemies are, we don't know who our allies' and enemies' allies and enemies are. As the spokesman for Paul Bremer during the Iraq occupation, Mr. Senor helped perpetrate one of the biggest foreign policy bungles in U.S. history. The clueless desert viceroys summarily disbanded the Iraqi Army, forced de-Baathification, stood frozen in denial as thugs looted ministries and museums, deluded themselves about the growing insurgency and misled reporters with their Panglossian scenarios of progress." In light of last week's events (advances by Sunni terrorists in western Iraq, collapse of the Iraqi state army, Iranian revolutionary guards reinforcing Shiite Iraq militias) aren't Dowd's words truer than ever? I agree that Dowd can be snarky at times, but that doesn't preclude allowing her criticisms in Wikipedia articles. And I note she writes for the NY Times, a well-respected newspaper. Chisme (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dowd, Maureen (September 16, 2012) "Neocons slither back: Romney and Ryan are taking their cues from hawks who got it wrong the last time." Washington Post. (Retrieved 9-17-12).

Dead Link[edit]

The reference listed as number 10 seems to be a dead link. Clicking on it leads me to "Page Not Found." Cheers, Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 17:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photo needed: Dan Senor as CPA spokemesman[edit]

Something like this? --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attn: possible vandalism[edit]

The Pro-Trump Internet is upset, e.g. [5] and page protection may become necessary. 65.112.8.73 (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump leak and BLP[edit]

Several editors have attempted to add material on Senor's purported role in the Donald Trump Access Hollywood controversy, citing TheGatewayPubdit.com. This is not a reliable source, because it has no editorial board or independent reputation for fact-checking. Furthermore, even this unreliable source only reports the link as "rumors" supported by unnamed third parties, meaning the material also fails WP:TABLOID.

The WP:BLPSOURCES policy states that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion, a policy reiterated by WP:BLPREMOVE. FourViolas (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dan Senor. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dan Senor. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dan_Senor&oldid=1206171708"