Talk:Tony Snow/Archive 1

Clean-up
I wonder if saying salary is too low if because he knows he is going to die fairly soon and wants to make more money - quickly - to leave more for them (he has kids) - original AP article di not say the $ "was not enough to raise family" as stated in Wikipedia.72.187.114.129 20:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

media reports suggest, Tony Snow is likely to succeed Scott McClellan as White House Press Secretary.

This means that he will take on a much higher profile and this article needs to reflect that.

Right now it looks like an indiscriminate cut and paste job of various columns he has written, and it needs some major work.--RWR8189 03:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversial?
I haven't edited this page because someone, very quickly, has clearly put in a good effort to reflect the changed magnitude of the article and the salient issues. However...

"Snow was a controversial choice for the role."

To whom was it a controversial choice? From my limited reading of CNN and Fox News' web sites over the past week, it was an extremely predictable choice and one, given Snow's moderate conservatism, undoubtedly easy and reassuring presence on camera, strong media links, past service of President George HW Bush, and so on, that was NOT controversial in the slightest.

IT WAS CONTROVERSIAL BECAUSE FOX NEWS IS A GOP PROPAGANDA MACHINE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.228.221 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Umm what? You obviously have never watched fox man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.29.125 (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"Unusually, he came from a newsmedia background." the article continues, before confirming that Presidents of both parties have drawn press secretaries from current media positions: "Snow joins Bill Moyers, who had a show on PBS in the 1950s before joining the Lyndon B. Johnson Administration in 1967, and Ron Nessen, an NBC News Correspondent before being tapped as Nixon's Press Secretary, as men pulled from the media to work for the government."

Just a couple of thoughts, but I leave it to you to judge their validity.

Not much validity there. Bill Moyers joined the Kennedy Administration in 1961. By 1967 he was out of the Johnson Administration and he could not have worked at PBS prior to this stint in government BECAUSE IT DID NOT EXIST. PBS WAS CREATED DURING THE JOHNSON ADMINISTRATION!


 * Good catch there, unnamed IP editor. Danthemankhan 17:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?
There's a fair amount of stuff he's been accused of that's been omitted from this article: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Snow_Racism_no_longer_a_big_0426.html

DNC calls at least one of those fact: http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/04/tony_snow_clip.php

They should either be acknowledged, squashed as myth, or referenced as a rumor. IMHO the article is clearly NPOV for failing to do so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.250.207.102 (talk • contribs).


 * The great thing about Wikipedia is that if you think an article is missing something, you can add it.--RWR8189 20:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Attempts to insert defamatory Democratic partisan talking points in this article will be vigorously resisted. 172 | Talk 22:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just for the record partisan talking points from both sides will be deleted. --Hamiltonian 23:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If these really is a fake video, it should be clearly noted. Otherwise it should be noted he's been critized for his comments in the past.
 * I've said this before, but it will be intersting to watch the transformation of this page and other Bush pages over the next decade when still-Bush-loyals finally give up whining that sourced, factual, and verifiable information shouldn't be added to an article because it makes a man who was paid to shill propaganda resulting in war and many people's death somewhat like a bad person.--71.113.219.77 (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No Quotes?
I was surprised to find that there was no link to Wikiquotes from this page. It seems fairly hard for me to believe that someone who worked as an anchor for a cable news channel for a number of years wouldn't have said anything quotable.--Dragonstrider 20:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, something's really fishy about this article. I mean, the guy made headlines for using the phrase "tar baby" in a press briefing and that's conveniently left out? He recently alluded to Helen Thomas' Lebanese ancestry in the context of a briefing about the Israel/Lebanon conflict by saying sarcastically "Thank you Helen, for the Hezbollah point of view." Unbelievable hubris and disrespect considering Thomas has been in that Thomas has been in that room doing her job since Mr. Snow was in diapers. And these are by no means the only examples of his bombastic remarks. Should we not be allowed to add any information about what Snow says as the mouthpiece of the administration? Direct quotes voiced from his position as White House Press Secretary are not relevant but a paragraph about his cover band, Beats Workin', somehow is? How awful.


 * Also 172, in keeping with Wikipedia's standards of objectivity, I agree with your notion and hope this article doesn't ever become an edit war between political partisans, though I must admit I find odd and somewhat offensive the implication that any criticism of Snow (or reportage thereof) be automatically characterized as "democratic talking points." Its completely reasonable to include some of the bizarre and outlandish things the man has said because they are well-discussed in the public at large and they are relevant to any description of Snow. And, as an aside: being anything but a Republican does not make one a Democrat.Inoculatedcities

"A constantly shifting band of domestic animals"?
That's the weirdest thing I've seen on Wikipedia today, and I just finished reading the Lolicon article. I think this whole thing could use a quick review to shake out some of the glowing admiration. --MattShepherd 20:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, somebody changed it! Cool. --MattShepherd 15:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

think progress
Surely we can get a better list of Snow's less than complimentary comments regarding the President than one compiled by what is little more than a virulently anti-Bush blog? Including the think progress compilation looks like little more than free advertising for the site. Tom e rtalk 23:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The first briefing.
I heard about the "hugging the tar baby" comment on The Daily Show last night, it seems like something noteworthy but maybe it should wait? The New York Times mentioned it in their review of his first at bat in an otherwise positive review--Bobak 18:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

bupkis?
Is it me or is the end of the article incredibly unclear? Die a crib death? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.185.135 (talk • contribs)


 * I agree that it was terribly written. Oddly enough, it was also stolen! Compare the version in the History to http://seattlepi.com/saturdayspin/270907_washcall20.html . Had either situation been the case, I'd have replaced it, so given both at once, I went ahead and re-did that whole section with citations. I know I understand the story much better now than I did before; hopefully others will too. --SuperNova |T|C| 07:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we please please please revise this article so it doesn't read like a profile written by the White House or Fox News? This is ridiculous. Inoculatedcities 16:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have some suggestions of how we might make it better? I'd be glad to hear anything you had to offer. --SuperNova |T|C| 06:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Snow's Cancer
There is a huge fight going on with wikipedia's John Edwards page that finally may have stabilized for now...whew

Three very frequent contributors were very forceful about deleting what I thought were factually correct remarks about Mrs. Edwards' cancer. In summary, I think they felt that there should be no language regarding public education or cancer awareness. Phrases along the line of 20% survival after 5 years were strenously objected to.

In contrast, there was language here that has nothing to do with Mr. Snow, only the disease prognosis being very bad. Whatever the prognosis data is only relates to the disease, not to Mr. Snow, at least that's along the same line of logic as the 3 people at the John Edwards' article.

My feeling is that language about how bad the disease is not really relevant except it's relevant in Mrs. Edwards case because they go overboard in painting a rosy picture. They said that it is "completely curable" and compared it to diabetes. I think that's very deceptive and potentially harmful to patient safety because it gives a false picture of the seriousness of the disease. If Mr. Snow said "My cancer is completely treatable, not much different from diabetes as far as always having to live with it..I will continue to work....and work a lot, maybe only being a little tired, sometimes" then I think a disclaimer is needed. I don't think he said anything like that.

As a compromise, I've toned down the prognosis language in the Mr. Snow article. However, I did keep in some prognosis language. What do you think?Dereks1x 00:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a brief note to point out that, again, you're confusing original research with POV (based on your edit summary to this article). (1) Your motivation to "raise cancer awareness" is no more appropriate here than at the Edwards article, as it is soapboxing, and (2) connecting cancer prognosis from an unrelated source to a particular case (whether Snow or Edwards or Santa Claus) without a source that already does so is original research of the synthesis variety.  All that to say, the article should not give a prognosis unless a source has done so for Mr. Snow specifically. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jersyko. I'll fix it and remove the prognosis judgement, the provided links didn't really address that except to say the situation was "very serious".  That could mean anything.  Let's wait for specific sources, thanks ;)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.131.248 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep an eye on this. A particular user (noted in the following section) feels very strongly about this being appropriate content for Tony Snow; it may sneak back in when nobody is watching. Ironiridis 23:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Today Snow said on the Tonight Show that he will have cancer for the rest of his life, a roundabout way of admitting that his cancer isn't curable. I've added a sentence to that effect. Brain Rodeo 04:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent vandalism
I strongly advocate the semi-protection of this article, especially in light of people writing their "condolences" and other silliness. Additionally, it would prevent the problem this article is currently having with User talk:158.123.132.2. Ironiridis 20:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ironiridis: To request semi-protection on a page you would go to WP:RFPP. But the 158.123.132.2 problem looks to have stopped for now. Tvoz | talk 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, as part of accepted practice, I was trying to start discussion rather than simply ask for it. I agree that the problem seems to have stopped. Ironiridis 21:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I see the little reign of terror that User:158.123.132.2 enjoyed is still occasionally popping up (as of April 4). Why hasn't this IP been banned? Oh, that's why. Ironiridis 20:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The 'Music' Section
Is everything under the 'Music' heading true!? If so, I take back some of the stuff I've said about Mr. Snow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anoma lee (talk • contribs) 08:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

TONY SNOW AND COLONOSCOPY PRIOR TO CANCER FINDING
Did Tony Snow discover the cancer as a result of a colonoscopy or did he have it when he was diagnosed? I am curious whether it was discovered as a result of having had this most important test. No one seems to have written a word about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.145.225 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 2007 March 31


 * You mean originally? Maybe he preferred to keep such private information private. Tvoz | talk 22:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Snow's comments on his cancer
[moved from my talk page to here] On [ http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55162 this page], Snow is quoted as saying, "Some of this has been misreported, I do not have liver cancer. There are a number of small tumors that are in my abdominal cavity; they have not hit any other organs; they are not traveling through the blood stream." The article continues with statements similar to cancerous masses were removed near his liver. What isn't supported by the article? And why isn't the article a reasonable source? I think you're picking a fight. Ironiridis 02:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, if it's not too hard, can you discuss things on the talk page before you delete them? A statement without a source is one thing to auto-revert without discussion; but what I re-inserted was sourced and reasonable. The talk page is for talking. Ironiridis 02:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not picking a fight at all. The text I removed said only this: "On April 11, 2007, Snow called into Bill O'Reilly's radio program and clarified that he does not have liver cancer but there is one cancer near his liver."  That is not what you quoted above. So first of all, as you yourself are saying, our article ought to reflect what a source says. However, I have further problems with this:  The source is not a mainstream reliable source, and its source is a blog, as far as I can see, which isn't particularly reliable either, making it even shakier.  Isn't this reported in any mainstream publication?  Or, is there a transcript available from O'R's show that is quotable?   I don't know one way or the other if it's accurate, but the item has been posted  in the Snow article with an incorrect date, with no sourcing, and then with a weak source - and the wording in the Snow article didn't quite reflect the words in the source, which furthermore may be slightly incorrectly transcribed. As you quoted above from the source,  Snow said "There are a number of small tumors that are in my abdominal cavity"  - that's clear - but the source then refers to "one cancer" being removed which is not typical terminology; perhaps Snow said that, but usually what people talk about is removal of tumors not cancers - so it raised questions in my mind as to whether it was accurately reported.  I don't have any problem at all with our Snow article including quotes from Snow about his own illness, or from anyone who has specific knowledge of his case -  in fact I would encourage it -I just suggest that you get a more reliable, traditional source, and quote it more thoroughly and accurately.  Sorry for not posting a note here on talk  when I removed it - I thought the edit summary which gave details would suffice.  So now if you can get a more reliable source, by all means accurately quote it and post it back in.  Hope this clarifies. Tvoz | talk 03:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do try to find a more reliable source. Deleting data, as opposed to sourcing it, does not make forward progress. It does have a source. There are accounts of Mr. Snow saying that. I'd love to cite Bill-O's site directly, but it's a payment-only feature. My point is that you did the least amount of work for the most destructive outcome. See the edit history of the article; I saw the statement was (still) unsourced, I deleted it, and then I found a source for it. Feel free to do the latter step. Ironiridis 17:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, I'm sorry you see it that way, but it's really not my responsibility to find a reliable source for something that someone else added to the article. But yes, if I were to find one, of course I would add it.   I saw what appears to me to be a problematically sourced statement, and in accordance with WP:BLP I removed it, and I provided an explanation. I've already apologized for not posting a comment here on talk immediately as well, but my edit summary clearly explained why it was being removed again and I thought that would suffice. Whoever does the re-adding, if it is done at all,  is responsible for making sure the source is reliable, or it can be removed again.


 * Here are relevant bits of WP:BLP for your convenience:
 * "Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space."
 * and
 * "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material."
 * Tvoz | talk 18:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As an aside, for what it's worth, I agree completely with what you said here - we had a similar problem regarding Elizabeth Edwards from a different user++ who went so far as to create sockpuppets in support of himself, one of whom was an identity as an MD who went around editing medical articles as that fake doctor, canvassed other wikipedia doctors and then came over to support himself in the argument as a "medical expert". So you and I are not so far apart. This situation here is just a matter of getting people to understand the need for reliably sourced statements, especially when talking about someone's health, but really all the time.  Again, a reliable source  quoting Snow on his own illness would be perfectly appropriate here and I'd welcome it. It's just one thing on a long list of things that would be nice to get to, and whoever feels strongly about including the statement should go after it. Tvoz | talk 18:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ++Ah, I see that now-banned puppetmaster dropped by here too - I had forgotten that

Assessment comment
Substituted at 16:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)