DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Mark Penn

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Untitled

[edit]

The page is vandalized as all get-out don't know how to flag! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavelow235 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please just describe any vandalism you see here on the talk page, if you can not fix it yourself. Superm401 - Talk 05:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"He was Hillary Clinton's chief strategist for most of her 2008 presidential campaign," -- Doesn't that presume her campaign is almost over? It could go to November, if pigs fly. 216.164.33.13 (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

During the last revision, Penn's bio seems to have been erased, including his background and history prior to 2008. I suspect that this is an error. I'm not editing this article, so I won't revert, but the current editors should perhaps look to fix this. Cyoung66 (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save it for 2050" controversy (copy/paste from CNN)

[edit]

I have reverted the addition of the following copy/paste from CNN.COM ...

"Save it for 2050" controversy

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A policy memo by Sen. Hillary Clinton's one-time chief strategist challenging Sen. Barack Obama's "American roots" make it difficult to close gaps between the former rivals. In a March 2007 memo, Mark Penn, Clinton's former chief strategist, wrote, "all of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared toward showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting that in a new light. Save it for 2050." It also exposes a very strong weakness for him -- his roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values," Penn wrote.

Feel free to add the information to the article appropriately. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

updates

[edit]

This article is in need of updates and balance. Help and comments welcome. Solarium2 (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - serious updates are needed. This reads like it was written by Penn himself. I don't know much about him, but from what I've read in other articles, he was fired by Clinton largely due to his incompetence with the campaign strategy. Sounds like a pretty watered down article overall... 81.243.18.18 (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To comments on Obama. The President's poll numbers went up significantly after the Tuscon shootings, this was indeed his "Oklahoma City bombing." Penn was absolutely correct with this statement so if the section is intended to create controversy it should be removed.

I also agree with other commenters that this article reads like it was written by Penn or a surrogate. Two especially absurd statements stand out. Mark Penn did not "create" the mall testing methodology for ad and message research in 1993. It long preceded him. In addition the author praises Penn's "strategy for winning" by targeting the women lower/middle class Democratic primary voters. News flash to the author--it was Obama who won the primary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:7E80:18A:705D:B4A5:936C:832E (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

buying a stereo

[edit]

His work for the paper included reporting and analysis on buying a stereo,

<ref name="HC/mjp/stereo">{{cite news |last1=Penn |first1=Mark J. |title=Your Stereo Is Only As Good as the Speakers |url=https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1973/12/8/your-stereo-is-only-as-good/ |access-date=22 August 2024 |work=The Harvard Crimson]] |date=December 8, 1973}}</ref>

@Bruce1ee: objects to including this work of his.

it shows his view of people, sellers, products, and choosing, his life work. this is important.

98.248.161.240 (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I slipped up there. The edit looked promotional to me. I've struck out the warning on the IP's talk page. —Bruce1eetalk 12:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok, will revert you...
13:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC) 98.248.161.240 (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Penn Never Consulted for Donald Trump

[edit]

Dear Editors, I’ve been hired to correct a factual error in the lede of Mark Penn’s page. I’ve disclosed my COI here and on my own Talk page.

The last sentence of the lede says the following: 

Penn later became a defender of Donald Trump, opposing his impeachment, consulting on his 2020 presidential campaign, and alleging a "deep state" conspiracy against him.[1]

All 4 claims here are sourced to a New York Times article from 2018 (“Mark Penn, Ex-Clinton Aide, Dismisses Mueller Inquiry, and the Clintons Along With It”). However, this article does not support the 3rd claim — that Penn “consulted” on Trump’s 2020 campaign. Indeed, the article doesn’t say anything like this at all.

That’s because Penn didn’t do any work whatsoever for Trump’s 2020 campaign.

So, how did this claim sneak its way into Wikipedia? Well, Penn did “defend” and “oppose” Trump’s impeachment (the 1st and 2nd claims). And he did “allege” a deep-state conspiracy (the 4th).

Also, in 2019, Penn met with Trump in the White House. But as CNN reported, “Penn told CNN that the meeting [with Trump] did not mean he was working for Trump or advising him going forward. ‘I am not in any way working for Donald Trump and not counseling him,’ Penn said in an email on Tuesday.”

For the sake of accuracy, please therefore remove the phrase “consulting on his 2020 presidential campaign” from the third paragraph of Penn’s Wikipedia page.

Thanks for your consideration.

Signed,
BlueRoses13 (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Not done, as I'm seeing another source that supports this statement. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Likeanechointheforest Thanks for your speedy review and research. I see that you added a link on the actual page. However, the Washington Post article you found concerns the same event as the CNN article I cited. And both articles explicitly say Penn did not counsel Trump. Here are the key quotes:
The Washington Post: "In a brief interview, Penn said repeatedly that he was not working for Trump. 'It’s the second time I have ever met with the president. I’m not counseling him. I’m not advising him.'"
CNN: "Penn told CNN that the meeting [with Trump] did not mean he was working for Trump or advising him going forward. 'I am not in any way working for Donald Trump and not counseling him,' Penn said in an email on Tuesday."
Both denials come from reliable sources and are unequivocal. What more is needed to remove the phrase "consulting on his 2020 presidential campaign"?
Thank you.
Signed,
BlueRoses13 (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that these articles and Penn are at odds with each other: the title specifically says that Penn counseled Trump. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Likeanechointheforest Many thanks for your analysis; I appreciate that greatly. If you're willing to continue the conversation, I'd like to offer two thoughts in response:
Thought #1
Of the 3 articles (in the Times, CNN, and the Post), only 1 uses the word “counsel.” Here are those titles:
• Mark Penn, Ex-Clinton Loyalist, Visits Trump, and Democrats Are Not Pleased
• Trump met with ex-Clinton pollster Mark Penn to discuss impeachment
• Former Clinton strategist Mark Penn counsels President Trump on impeachment
Thought #2
Penn and Trump met once. It was not a 1-on-1 meeting, but, according to the Times, a meeting of 5 people that lasted for 20 minutes. The Times concludes, “People in attendance said the meeting was not about politics or impeachment, and was brief.”
Does 1 short meeting really constitute “counseling” — especially at the level of being mentioned in the lede of that person’s Wikipedia page?
Signed,
BlueRoses13 (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yes, personally Likeanechointheforest (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Likeanechointheforest Many thanks for continuing to spend time with me on this. One last message, if you’re so inclined:
To recap:
1. This was a 20-minute, 5-person meeting.
2. Trump meets with myriad people. If everyone who met with Trump was thereby deemed to have “counseled” him, the word would lose meaning. Surely the bar must be higher than one, single, short, multi-person visit.
3. Of the three outlets that reported on the meeting, only one used the word “counsel.” The others said “visit” and “discuss.”
4. Both the Post and CNN quote Mark as saying explicitly that he absolutely did not counsel Trump.
5. The level of detail in the Trump sentence seems excessive; doesn’t this violate MOS:LEADREL? To be sure, it’s fair for the lede to say that “Penn later became a defender of Donald Trump.” And if you want, keep the details that Mark opposed impeachment and alleged a deep state conspiracy. But to broadcast, in this critical section, a disputed claim that rests on one meeting and comes from one headline seems to be gratuitous and prejudicial. What about WP:WEIGHT?
Since it seems you disagree with these points, may I suggest that fairness compels us to do the following:
1. Include Mark’s repeated, unequivocal denial.
and/or
2. Change the word “consulting” to “providing advice.” The latter phrase seems not only more accurate and less loaded, but also respects the language used by the Post and CNN, both of which say Mark “provided polling data and impeachment advice.”
What do you think? I’d welcome your viewpoint. Or would it be appropriate for me to re-open this request, so that others can weigh in? Thanks again.
Signed,
BlueRoses13 (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think let others weigh in, yes! Likeanechointheforest (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. Will do (later this week). Best, BlueRoses13 (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Baker, Peter (May 22, 2018). "Mark Penn, Ex-Clinton Aide, Dismisses Mueller Inquiry, and the Clintons Along With It". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.

COI Request

[edit]

Hello editors, @Likeanechointheforest has generously allowed me to reopen this COI request. In short, I think we should remove the phrase “consulting on his [Donald Trump's] 2020 presidential campaign” from the lede of Mark’s page. (The phrase appears in the sentence, “Penn later became a defender of Donald Trump, opposing his impeachment, consulting on his 2020 presidential campaign, and alleging a ‘deep state’ conspiracy against him.”)

By way of background, Mark met with Trump in the White House in 2019. But:

A. This wasn’t a one-on-one meeting that went on for hours. On the contrary, the meeting involved 5 people and lasted only 20 minutes.

B. Trump meets with myriad people. If everyone who met with Trump was thereby deemed to have “consulted” on his campaign, the word would lose meaning. Surely the bar must be higher than one, single, short, multi-person visit.

C. Of the three RS that reported on the meeting, none used the word “consult.” The Washington Post did say “counsel” in its headline, but the New York Times and CNN said “visit” and “discuss.” Take a look at the headlines:

✍️Mark Penn, Ex-Clinton Loyalist, Visits Trump, and Democrats Are Not Pleased (The New York Times)

✍️Trump met with ex-Clinton pollster Mark Penn to discuss impeachment (CNN)

✍️Former Clinton strategist Mark Penn counsels President Trump on impeachment (The Washington Post)

D. Both the Washington Post and CNN quote Mark as saying explicitly that he absolutely did not counsel Trump. Here are the full and exact quotes:

The Post: “In a brief interview, Penn said repeatedly that he was not working for Trump. ‘It’s the second time I have ever met with the president. I’m not counseling him. I’m not advising him.’”

CNN: “Penn told CNN that the meeting [with Trump] did not mean he was working for Trump or advising him going forward. ‘I am not in any way working for Donald Trump and not counseling him,’ Penn said in an email on Tuesday.”

So, it seems there are two issues:

1. Did Mark “consult” on Trump’s presidential campaign?

2. If so, does that fact warrant inclusion in the lede of Mark’s Wikipedia page?

I think it’s highly debatable whether Mark “consulted” for Trump’s campaign. In my view, a more-accurate and less-loaded word is “advised”: Both the Post and CNN say that Mark “provided polling data and impeachment advice.” The Times adds, “People in attendance said the meeting was not about politics.”

So, perhaps we can change “consulting on his 2020 presidential campaign” to “providing advice for his 2020 presidential campaign”?

If you disagree — if you want to keep the word “consult” — then I think fairness (or WP:BALANCE) compels us to include Mark’s repeated, unequivocal denials.

As to the second issue — does this meeting belong in the lede? — I think the answer is clearly no. The level of detail in the Trump sentence seems excessive and disproportionate, thus violating WP:LEADREL and WP:WEIGHT.

To be sure, it’s fair for the lede to say that “Penn later became a defender of Donald Trump.” And if you want, keep the details that Mark opposed impeachment and alleged a deep state conspiracy; these are both true.

But to broadcast, in this critical section, a disputed claim that rests on one meeting and comes from one headline seems to be gratuitous and prejudicial.

What do you think?

Thank you for your consideration.

Signed,
BlueRoses13 (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The Cambridge Dictionary defines the word consult as "to get information or advice from a person, book, etc. with special knowledge on a particular subject." I think I can concede that it may have been a very short consultation, but based on available sources, it was a consultation nonetheless. It feels more accurate than advise, which is defined as "to give someone official information about something." I feel as if this discussion, looking through it, has gotten too bogged down in semantics - as has Mr. Penn. Adding his denials would, in my opinion, create WP:FALSEBALANCE, although I'm willing to have a discussion about that with independent editors.

(a side note - you're unlikely to win any battle unlinking Mr. Penn and President Trump since Penn is still providing consulting services [1]).

If you wanted to help make the page better, I would advise you to get a fresh headshot for Mr. Penn. Wikipedians often have a hard time doing that. Meepmeepyeet (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Meepmeepyeet Thanks for your close read, suggestion for a new headshot, and invitation to discus Mark's denial with other editors. I'll start a new COI request and tag you. Signed, BlueRoses13 (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask for you not to ping me, but do start a new COI request. Meepmeepyeet (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Including Mark's Denial

[edit]

Hello editors,

The last sentence of the lede says this: 

Penn later became a defender of Donald Trump, opposing his impeachment, consulting on his 2020 presidential campaign,[1] and alleging a "deep state" conspiracy against him.[2]

The third claim, that Mark consulted for Trump’s presidential campaign, is hotly contested. Let me explain, then offer a solution:

1. I think that WP:BALANCE compels us to include Mark’s denial — or at least add the word “reportedly.” Mark is on record with two RSes, repeatedly and explicitly, saying that he never consulted for Trump. And so, to broadcast, in the all-important lede, a disputed claim — without mentioning Mark’s denial or adding a modifier like “reportedly” — seems to be unbalanced.

Here are Mark’s denials:

The Washington Post: “In a brief interview, Penn said repeatedly that he was not working for Trump. ‘It’s the second time I have ever met with the president. I’m not counseling him. I’m not advising him.’”

CNN: “Penn told CNN that the meeting [with Trump] did not mean he was working for Trump or advising him going forward. ‘I am not in any way working for Donald Trump and not counseling him,’ Penn said in an email on Tuesday.”

2. Is this a case of WP:FALSEBALANCE? I don’t think so. We’re not giving airtime to Holocaust deniers or flat Earthers. We’re including — as any reputable journalist would do — a denial from someone who says he didn’t do something. Put another way: If the Washington Post and CNN think it’s important to quote Mark’s side of the story, then why doesn’t Wikipedia?

3. In general, WP:BLP tells us to tread carefully. In this case, since Mark has denied that he ever consulted for Trump so unequivocally, it seems appropriate to mention that key detail.

4. In general, as this essay says, when sources conflict, “editors need to report all significant viewpoints as fairly as possible.”

So, instead of “consulting on his 2020 presidential campaign,” might we say either (a) “consulting on his 2020 presidential campaign" (which Penn denies)” or (b) “reportedly consulting on his 2020 presidential campaign”?

Thank you for your consideration.

Signed,
BlueRoses13 (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Added reportedly and that he denies it, if there's any particular body-text you'd like to make a suggestion for please let me know. Encoded  Talk 💬 17:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Happy holidays! Signed, BlueRoses13 (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Former Clinton strategist Mark Penn counsels President Trump on impeachment". The Washington Post. 2019-11-26. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2025-08-31.
  2. ^ Baker, Peter (May 22, 2018). "Mark Penn, Ex-Clinton Aide, Dismisses Mueller Inquiry, and the Clintons Along With It". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.