Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:58, 30 June 2008

Education Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Columbia University

Biography: Politics and Government Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

George Stephanopoulos received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

White House Press Secretary

I cannot find any source mentioning that he was White House Press Secretary. olivier 03:07, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

I did some Google searches and also checked the Lexis/Nexis news database. It appears that Stephanopoulos was president-elect Clinton's press secretary during the transition period between the election and Clinton's inauguration. His title may have been press secretary for a brief period following the inauguration, and there are a number of news stories that refer to him as "press secretary" even later during his time at the White House. Usually, however, he was referred to as "communications director," while Dee Dee Myers was referred to as "press secretary." I'll change the article. --Sheldon Rampton 05:35, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

If you read Stephanopoulos' book he discusses the days where he was press secretary. You can also find transcripts of briefings here http://www.clintonpresidentialcenter.org/legacy3.htm?dt=press+briefings

This is an interesting point, actually. He definitely mentions being Press Secretary in his book. But when you read various reference materials that list, say, Clinton's Press Secretaries or his Communication Directors, they invariably do not mention George. Very odd! Rlove 23:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:Clinton administration

• Added Category Clinton administration controversies Telecineguy

• (rv Category:Clinton administration - he wasn't charged or accused of anything controversial) Wasted Time R

• add (Category:Clinton administration 'controversies not crime: Stephanopoulos spoke of his depression relentless pressures of conveying the Clinton White House message.) Telecineguy

• Removed: Category:Clinton administration (this sort of thing happens in many high government positions, hardly qualifies as a "controversy") Wasted Time R

Debate is was Stephanopoulos in the middle of the "Clinton administration controversies". Bill Clinton wrote that he was one of the men on the hot seat in defending Bill. I leave it here in talk for you to think about. Telecine Guy 00:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Under the Notes section, reference #2 http://www.hawes.com/1999/9904.htm takes you absolutely nowhere and needs to be fixed or removed.

Criticism

Is the August 5th debate the only criticism offered for Stephanopoulous? The observation seems trivial, and more complex than simply bias.

I suggest removing it, or finding more meaningful criticism.

Can you explain your motives in wanting the "criticism" out? If this entry on Stephanopoulous is to an encyclopedia entry of any worth, any widespread public criticism is fair game as long as it fits the BLP guidelines. The facts are supposed to be in the entry. Who are you to vet what is "meaningful?" Isn't that a form of censorship? The "controversy" is important to include because it shows a particular devolution in American political media: a presidential "debate" that was "moderated" by a former operative/opposition researcher/spokesman of a candidate's spouse. Once the "debate" has generated a bit less heated comment, it will truly need inclusion in this article. G.S. is going to be remembered as somebody who once was a cool young Democrat in a previous incarnation but somehow got reduced to cribbing questions from Sean Hannity and getting exercised about flag lapel pins. The debate marks a moment in ABC's history when it got even more desperate to be like Fox, and why nobody much watches ABC anymore. Let ABC choose mediocrity and the banality of evil if it wishes --that doesn't mean Wikepedia has to die the same death.Phoebe13 (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I for one have not encountered "widespread public criticism" of Stephanopoulos for the debate that happened YESTERDAY. I don't think anyone can declare that there is widespread public criticism 12 hours after the criticized performance ended. TheoMurpse 72.179.61.169 (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The point here is, even if there was widespread criticism, it certainly isn't enough to justify its prominence in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.154.79 (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Most articles have a section called 'Controversies' to cover such things as the presidential debate. Flatterworld (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism from anonymous bloggers on the Internet? Not notable. I removed two blog sources and generally cleaned up the pundit section per WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Not everything Ron Paul does is noteworthy, regardless of what his internet fans believe. The interview does not belong in this article.--75.68.115.72 16:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The statement was done by Stephanopoulos and wouldn't have been less outrageous and unprofessional if said into the face of any other candidate. --217.233.236.77 03:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not noteworthy, it's completely miniscule. And you can bet your ass everyone would agree with him if he said it to Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo. --161.253.53.74 (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm deleting it because it's a waste of space Gang14 (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Born where?

So where is he born? The table says New York, New York, while the text says Fall RIver Massachusetts. Which is correct? Paploo 15:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Is he related to...

the ex- Greek President Costis Stephanopoulos? Just curious. (oops, wasn't signed in) Zidel333 14:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture trivia removed

I took some of the pop culture references. Him being a model for characters in The West Wing etc. (IMO) is fairly notable. Jokes on TV sitcoms seemed less so. These also seemed to be partly used as a coatrack to mention rumors that he is gay. Since in our present culture any man with a refined, polite manner seems to become the target of gay rumors if he becomes well-known; these are not notable, nor should they be mentioned by WP. Borock (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Whitewater?

This sentence is currently the article:

On Feb. 25, 1994 George Stephanopoulos and Harold Ickes had a conference call with Roger Altman to discuss RTC's choice of Republican lawyer Jay Stephens to head the Madison Guaranty investigation, that later turned in to the Whitewater investigation.

It left me with the impression that this conference call was seminal in the Whitewater affair. Upon reading the CNN timeline referred to in the footnote, this call was in fact nearly irrelevant, and it is the only time where Stephanopolous is mentioned.

It seems me to that this sentence should be deleted, or at the least edited to make clear that the call was of no major importance.

Jrauser (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Liberal

Removed the adjective "liberal" from the introduction. He is a journalist, not a politician. Besides, the claim was unsourced. --Tsk070 (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps it ought to be reintroduced; don't treat it as if it's some kind of epithet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.255.132 (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Unassessed education articles
• Unknown-importance education articles
• WikiProject Education articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Old requests for peer review