Talk:Peter Doocy/Archive 1

Non notable material
I removed some non notable material. --Tom (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is he relevant on Wikipedia?
Why is this entry even notable?... If not for the fact that he is Steve Doocy's son, he is just another junior reporter for a cable news network. Nothing remarkable about that. He has a job, just like most people. He does not have his own show, he has not authored any book, he is not a media personality. I suggest this entry be removed entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.35.143 (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually find him to be a good reporter, not typical hack-hire. That said, I agree with every word you typed above. He is not even an anchor on his own network, let alone a known presence. Why don't we go through the list of reporters employed at all US cable news networks and see how many individuals with equivalent air-time/notability have articles here? This isn't a result of Wikipedia having incomplete coverage of those reporters, its simply because they aren't notable. Good luck to the guy honestly, can't blame him for taking the opportunity his father's name provides him, but I motion for deletion. If no other editors have reason to disagree, Ill be removing the article. 24.60.214.65 (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I enjoy watching him get humiliated by Jen Psaki at ever White House press conference but other than that, I agree, he is completely irrelevant as a news media presence. 2604:2000:CFC0:100:7522:85A7:B6DB:F767 (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes I too love watching the republicans get pwned, we should delete this article, best to give as little coverage as possible of right wingers to ensure they dont influence society 47.157.129.133 (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

"Material" about presser
I removed some "material" about a recent press conference. If it becomes some big deal, maybe revisit it in a few months. --Malerooster (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The standard for inclusion of content is not that something receives sustained coverage in RS months on end. If that were the standard, 99.9% of the content on this encyclopedia would be removed. But you know that. The sole reason you made that revert was because of your creepy obsessive WP:HOUNDING. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You are wrong on both counts. --Malerooster (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Reverting uncited text with uncited text?
This morning, in light of Peter Doocy’s latest “limelight” moment, I inserted a factual edit regarding his father’s influence in his securing a job at Fox News immediately following his graduation from college with a degree in Political Science. It was almost immediately reverted by Nerguy who stated “on his own merit” without stating any source. Neither comment, nor any “fact” in the paragraph is supported by a citation. Those of us PoliSci majors who graduated with Doocy from Villanova - many with bona fides that surpassed Doocy’s - are fully cognizant of exactly how he “landed” his job at Fox. So, three comments: First, how does one revert an uncited edit with an uncited revert ? Second, Nerguy reverted the comment because apparently HE believed it was negative in tone. Plumbers’ kids become plumbers; electricians kids become electricians; famous actors kids become…. etc. Nepotism is a long-standing fact of life (John Adams/John Quincy Adams; the two Bushes, etc.) The world knows or has inferred exactly how Doocy got his job. Third, Nerguy believes he “owns” this article. This is a quite common shortcoming of Wiki: Individuals who “police” their favorite articles, altering their factual foundation. It is the basis of most Wiki-Wars. I don’t intend to play that game. Nerguy is welcome to his “alternative facts”. 72.218.205.71 (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems that you are engaging in WP:NOR because you are one of "us PoliSci majors who graduated with Doocy from Villanova,..., are fully cognizant of exactly how he “landed” his job at Fox"." Being fully cognizant is not a reliably sourced fact. "The world knows or has inferred exactly how Doocy" is also not considered reliable, see WP:RS. And no I dont think that I own the article, but you should be sticking in your own "cognizant" knowledge without sources. Nerguy (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Although you rattled on for a bit, you didn’t say a thing about the point he made (read his subject line again). The paragraph in question has NO citations. So his unsourced edit it just as good as all the other unsourced edits in the article. The right answer is to remove the paragraph completely. But you’re not going to do or allow that, are you? And thus you will demonstrate that his assertion that you think you own the article is correct. Explain yourself.

Semi-Protected Edit Request
Please add to Lead, after first sentence : "Doocy is best known for being "a stupid son of a bitch" according to President Joe Biden.
 * - Possibly not, because it's pejorative. Probably other issues as well (WP:BLP). Reply to 'unsigned' contribution to talk page. 104.33.209.99 (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Awkward? Really?
"He quickly established a reputation for asking the president and White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki awkward questions that elicited annoyed responses". This is clearly POV and editorialized language. Awkward is a derogatory word. No to mention other journalists from Washington Post and New York Times (and numerous others) have supported some of his questions that was criticized by Biden and other media. Even the article cited states that. At least it should be replaced as "described as "awkward" by xxx". --Gogolplex (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I make no comment on whether "awkward" should be in there, but I didn't read it as derogatory. I took it to mean that the questions were uncomfortable for the one being questioned, which could be the mark of a good reporter. Now that I think about, maybe it's an ambiguous enough description that it should be removed or replaced.  signed, Willondon (talk)  16:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Actually, awkward is not a derogatory word and it's the most appropriate word to describe, at least, some of his questions. If you say to use "described as awkward", that's clearly a POV. It presumes that you the editor don't consider any of his questions as "awkward", while any question that makes a respondent feels unpleasant or uncomfortable is simply by definition an awkward question. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The word "clumsy" is somewhat, or especially "blundering." However, "awkward" is descriptive in a neutral and non-pejorative manner. For example, teenagers going through puberty are often observed as being "awkward," since their arms and legs often grow faster than the rest of their bodies, resulting in a state of awkwardness - just a stage of life, just part of human development. If one would be looking for a derogatory word to describe awkwardness, one would use the word "blundering" or perhaps "klutzy." Even the words "ungainly" or "bungling" can be seen as simply descriptive, while "blundering," "inept" or "incompetent" would be more pejorative. Great topic. 104.33.209.99 (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

OR mindreading
Hassanjalloh1, please explain your edit better. Your edit summary ("Biden was only musing in the last sentence (that's why it should be differentiated from the previous two where he responded directly (saracastically). Musing is a thought process and you report this in writing by italicizing.") doesn't seem to match what actually happened, unless you are a mindreader, which seems to be your OR justification for the change.

8 https://www.nbcnews.com/video/biden-swears-at-fox-news-reporter-on-hot-mic-131599429777

The whole thing was said in a lowered voice and described by RS as sarcastic musing. -- Valjean (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The first two sentences in that quote are different because it was a direct response to Doocy (but in a sarcastic way). The last sentence, Biden didn't intend for any one to hear it. He was musing, and musing is generally when you express your thoughts into words but do not intend for anyone to hear them. Unfortunately he was caught on mic. That's what really happened. When you report words spoken by someone in writing, you quote; however if these words are actually thoughts, then you italicize them. Honestly these could be two isolated incidents that just happened quickly. That's why people need to see a difference. That is, the scence of Biden sarcastically responding to Doocy and later musing those words are not the same but rather happened so fast. It was like after responding to him and he turned to leave then Biden uttered the last sentence. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The whole statement was sarcastic and uttered in the same voice. I think your italics are the same as unwarranted scare quotes based on your OR reasoning. I've been here since 2003 and never seen this reasoning used. What policy or guideline can you cite for doing this? -- Valjean (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * First of all, you being here relatively longer than me has nothing to do with applying common sense and, of course, technical knowledge of grammar. You might be here longer than me, but obviously you've indicated how confused you are regarding simple technical corrections. I bet you're still struggling to understand what I explained above. What original research has to do with this anyway? I bet many people who watched the view knew that those were two seperate incidents that occured almost at the same time. Let me put it this way: Biden responded to Doocy, "It's a great asset. More inflation". As Doocy turned his back to leave he then said, "What a stupid son of a bitch" (to know audience, but himself). In fact a lot of media outlets only focused on the last sentence. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No need for snide remarks. You're better than that. I'll repeat: What policy or guideline can you cite for doing this?
 * You wrote: Biden responded to Doocy, "It's a great asset. More inflation". Are you assuming that Biden was serious and that he was not being sarcastic? I don't know of any RS that split the comment as if one part was serious and the other sarcastic. Doocy didn't even hear the comment because he and all the other reporters had their backs to Biden because they were leaving the room, and Biden didn't expect him to hear any part of what he said. -- Valjean (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you read my first comment above you'd see how I mentioned that Biden responded sarcastically. This is just the most appropriate way of reporting (in writing) what happened. Trying to clog all the three sentences in that quote to read like a single utterance is really not a faithful representation of what happened. If you say, for instance, there shouldn't be any difference between the sentences, it clearly implies that Biden intended to insult Doocy directly (as the two previous sentences he directly responded to him sarcastically). However, in the last sentence Biden didn't intend for Doocy to hear it (most probably he didn't intend for any one else to hear). That's why the last sentence should be separated from the rest of the quote. And the technical way to do this is to italicize it. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, but we have no policy or guideline that allows such an OR manner of quoting. You're introducing your LONE interpretation, and that's not allowed. Find the PAG that allows such a practice and I'll consider it. Heck, even find me an example of this being done (by someone other than you) here at Wikipedia! -- Valjean (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously though, there is nothing extraordinary about the quote. I don't know why you keep on insisting on this OR thing :). Those are just Biden's words been reported in writing. And in doing so, you have to ensure that the spoken words are faithfully represented. OK, here is another variation I thought about: ""It's a great asset. More inflation... What a stupid son of a bitch." You notice the break in this case, indicating that the last sentence is different from the other two. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not introducing any "LONE interpretation". This is common English grammar and writing skills. Probably you've never come across it. As the saying goes, "we live to learn" probably here's to you learning something new (nothing personal). People who know what I'm talking about clearly understand me. Probably you should do some research on how and when to use italics in writing, that might help clear some off these doubts we're dealing with now. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hassan, the ellipsis signals that words have been left out, but that's not the case here, so it's misleading. You may well have learned some form of creative writing I haven't run into, so please enlighten me with a good source (such as Perdue's OWL), as well as a Wikipedia guideline justifying use of italics in this manner. (Why do I have to keep asking you for this information? Is it because there is no justification for it?)
 * I confess to being a bit "language confused". I'm American, but lived the first nine years of my life in Asia (speaking a bit of Japanese, Korean, and Tagalog as a small child) and have lived in six different countries (west Greenland Inuit's Kalaallisut is the most difficult language I've ever started to learn). I also speak two languages every day. Living in Europe for most of my adult life and rarely speaking English broke my once near-perfect English grammar and other English language skills. Now I'm handicapped by that. I now make mistakes I never made when in high school and college. I've taken college level creative writing English classes, but never encountered your use of italics. I'm aware that when writing personal content, such as a book or poetry, poetic license allows for violation of the normal rules of grammar and punctuation, but such practices are not accepted in other situations where formal rules are followed. This is not the place for an editor's personal practices to be inserted. It's OR. -- Valjean (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Valjean You keep saying as if WP has unique and standard rules for writing other than the general English grammar and writing skills familiar with everyone capable of writing in English. When you keep pushing this OR narrative it seems as if you're implying that I tried to "manufacture" some kind of opinion that is completely different from what is at source. First, we're discussing about a quote of three sentences that are exactly the words that Biden spoke. The problem is, how do we best write those sentences onto Wikipedia? No matter how you look at it, English writing skills are a fundamental part of editing in Wikipedia. Trying to challenge well defined rules of grammar and writing regarding a particular quote is just not something to focus on. I clearly explained to you above that there is no original research in this, it's simple English writing knowledge been applied here at best just like how English writing rules are applied right across the encyclopedia on a daily basis. My personal opinion or stance on this issue or in politics has absolutely nothing (zero!) to do with this. I think you probably know that the most important sentence in that quote is the last one in italics (that's actually what created all the fuzz, and made this whole thing newsworthy in the first place). The first two sentences are just mere context/background. That's one reason to highlight the difference between the first two and last one (the most important one). Well, here is what ABC says on their website, the source that is cited in the article: 'Biden responded with sarcasm, “It's a great asset — more inflation." Then he shook his head and added, “What a stupid son of a bitch.” You see how they separated the first two sentences from the last one? So the ellipses signal that there was a break in the flow of words, and that something was left out or omitted right before the last sentence was uttered by Biden; therefore, clarifying that the two occurences are not actually the same. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Writing "the general English grammar and writing skills familiar with everyone capable of writing in English" is unhelpful, obviously untrue, and assumes that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and/or uneducated, in contrast to "everyone capable". That's BS. The rules for English even vary depending on country. For example, British vs American English rules vary a lot. You still haven't provided me with an authoritative English grammar/punctuation source or a Wikipedia guideline. You're just repeating yourself and expecting a different result, and that's obviously not working. I won't just take your word for it. I want authoritative sources. THEN I might learn something, and that's certainly a possibility. There's a lot I don't know, even though a straight-A student.

So, I'm not actually insisting that my way is the only way, but we should have a solution that faithfully represents the source. For instance, we could lift the way it is narrated on ABC and replace the middle sentence with ellipses, such as: "It's a great asset — more inflation... What a stupid son of a bitch.” Let me know what you think. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Since what RS write is our guide, why not just quote ABC and attribute it to them? We can accept their creative way of writing it without us performing any OR. The way they write it shows the pause without implying any words were left out. It also describes his body language without us doing it. Just write:
 * ABC reported that "Biden responded with sarcasm, 'It's a great asset — more inflation.' Then he shook his head and added, 'What a stupid son of a bitch.'"[ABC ref]
 * That should work fine. Even without seeing the video, you can imagine how he did it. -- Valjean (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ OK, Valjean this seems more appropriate. Thanks. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

How is it a "Hot Mic" if Biden was using it during the meeting before?
The use of the term "Hot Mic" does not feel appropriate as it usually implies that the speaker does not know the microphone is on. Clearly, Biden knew the microphone was switched on when he called Doocy a "stupid son of a bitch". In the video he turns slightly away and to his right as if he were avoiding the live microphone. Forcing this into the narrative of "hot mic" seems an oversimplification of the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:740:8002:C940:E5E7:6CA8:9ADE:58F6 (talk • contribs)
 * A hot microphone or a "hot" anything, just means that it's turned on. Meaning it's electrified. It's nothing to do with the fact that you or anyone else knows that it's turned off or turned on. 47.21.192.242 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not entirely true. It is also used in this context, or when one wants to notify a person to be careful because the microphone is live. -- Valjean (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's how RS described the situation, and we follow what they say. It’s highly unlikely he would have said any of that if he had known the mic hadn't been turned off yet. -- Valjean (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What is RS? Please define the acronym.  Why follow what they say if it is wrong or dubious?  Both Trevor Noah and Stephen Colbert have called this "hot mic" narrative into question. It is highly likely that Biden knew the microphone was on because he had been speaking into it for the whole session before.  The fact that he turned to his right while saying it, indicates that he was a little sheepish about having people hear it, but nonetheless was probably so ticked off that he figured 'to hell with it'.  We really don't know.  But we can say that he probably knew the microphone was on which calls into question the entire "hot mic" narrative.
 * Read about Reliable sources. We base our content on what they say, not our own interpretations of what happened. The speaker does not control the microphone, but when they are finished they usually assume the microphone has been turned off. That's why reliable sources (RS) describe the incident as a "hot mic" incident, meaning the microphone was still turned on, unbeknownst to the speaker.
 * Noah and Colbert mix facts with comedy and sarcasm, and it's sometimes hard to parse the exact dividing lines if one is not a native English speaker. I love their sarcasm. What they say about the incident would have to be framed as their own opinions. -- Valjean (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the big issues in this incident is whether Biden knew the mic was on or not. I would argue along with Noah and Colbert that it is very hard to believe that Biden would not have known the microphone was on if he had just been using it for a long time.  As someone who is familiar with addressing an audience, I think it is safe to assume that Biden would have known the microphone is on.  Therefore, I find it doubtful when RS tells us it was a "hot mic" incident.  If you rely on the primary source of the video itself, I cannot believe that Biden did not know that microphone was on...especially because he lowers his voice and turns away and to the right.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:740:8002:C940:A5BA:B5D8:6580:6823 (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's certainly a possibility, but is only editorial speculation. Without a RS we can't write anything about it. That would be WP:OR. Hot mic incidents happen all the time, and most are genuine, but a "fake" incident is shown in The West Wing, where President Bartlet deliberately said something and let everyone think it was a hot mic incident... . IIRC, it was C. J. Cregg who figured out what was going on. -- Valjean (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant 2022 White House Correspondence Dinner Joke
I would like some consensus on some deletion of text. I don't believe that the blurb about the 2022 WHCD has any relevance to this biography. It is quite irrelevant as the joke was not 1. specifically referring to Pete Doocy and 2. even if it did, there was noteworthy about it. This small part of the dinner has nothing to do with his fame and seems quite impertinent. I'm referring to WP:NPF and WP:BLPPUBLIC. Amicuswiki07 (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, the joke was not directly about him, so hard to see how it applies to his biography. Also simply being in a random TV reaction shot on does not validate someone's covid vaccination status. Deleting that line. 65.199.217.170 (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

PROD
This article isn't eligible for WP:PROD. 2600:8800:1580:1E0:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. It isn't eligible for speedy deletion. Given Carley Shimkus and Todd Piro are show hosts and Peter Doocy's a correspondent, this article should be deleted Sucker for All (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)