Jump to content

Talk:Heather Wilson

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

[edit]

To User:NNtw22 -- why did you remove the youtube external link for her testimony concerning the Viacom hearing? per WP:EL:

YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites: There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would be infrequent). See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate intellectual property rights.

Therefore, on what basis are you removing this link? Public hearings are public property. ∴ Therefore | talk 03:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we post a link to every video she appears in or just the ones you chose? There are hundreds of videos with her, likethis one. What are your reasons for including the video? I don't see any politicians featured articles with youtube links. George W. Bush doesn't have any neither does Ted Stevens. NNtw22 04:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point -- including hundreds of videos would be pointless (and against WP:EL standards). One clarification: I didn't include the video. Secondly, the standards for WP are not what is done on other pages. We could trade politician articles that include videos (e.g., George Allen (U.S. politician) has an EL with a video as does Carolyn McCarthy) and you can counter with articles that don't. In this case, the video relates directly to the section titled "Super Bowl halftime show controversy". Referring again to WP:EL:

There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.: ... Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?

In this case, arguably, this link provides backup for said section. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 04:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Ted Stevens article, in fact, has an EL that links to an audio recording. Are you objecting that the Wilson EL includes video along with audio? ∴ Therefore | talk 05:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The John F. Kennedy article has several multi-media ELs. ∴ Therefore | talk 05:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This youtube clip adds nothing to the article. Wilson appears in Congress nearly every weekday so there are plently of videos with her. I don't see why you want to include it. Leaving it there only encourages people to add more youtube clips that are anything of substance.
Yes, the Kennedy article does have video, but don't you see a difference between a killed PRESIDENT's inauguration and a Congresswoman's questioning at a house comittee meeting? C56C 16:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adds nothing? The clip validates the quotation that is in the section "Super Bowl halftime show controversy" -- the video citation for the quotation. Just as in Ted Stevens, the audio clip is the citation for the section of the article that refers to his analogy of the internet as a series of tubes. Just as in the Carolyn McCarthy article, the video serves as the citation for the section of the article that highlights her mistaken definition of a "barrel shroud".
You are correct that it isn't valid to compare a president's article (slain or otherwise) to a congressperson's. I used the JFK article to counter the argument that the Bush article lacks multimedia external links. NNtw22 drew the conclusion that politicians' articles don't include multimedia links using the Bush article and (incorrectly) the Stevens article to buttress his argument. I picked JFK as an analogous (i.e., presidential) counter-example.
If this was a random video link unrelated to the text of the article, I would agree with you. Since it is "proof" of the entire quotation used in the article, it adds value. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are using it as a citation it belongs as a </ref/> not a WP:EL. C56C 18:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may go one step further: the article characterizes her comments, from third parties, as "grandstanding" and a "tempest in a teacup". Some sources for the event describe her voice as "cracking", some mockingly. Therefore, the video not only validates the actual quotation, but allows the reader to judge for themselves if these characterizations are accurate. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That opens the floor to people posting all types of videos for all types of people. If you leave this video in, its going to make for an interesting campaign, as videos get posted by different parties. C56C 18:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is possible. I haven't seen that happen in either the Ted Stevens or the Carolyn McCarthy articles. If someone adds a video that is unrelated to a sourced section of the article, then I believe it should be removed. If someone adds a video and that is the only source of a section of the article, then I believe, again, that should be removed. Using only a primary source is not preferred Wikipedia policy. A third party source should be the arbiter whether a comment is notable. In this case, the section is sourced by a CNN article and there are many other reliable sources that made this notable. Therefore, the addition of the video serves to support the section, not an invitation for a flood of videos. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP violation

[edit]

I have removed the second paragraph of the article lead again. It is a blazing WP:BLP violation. Don't even suggest that I might be a Republican trying to whitewash the article. I am a lifelong Democrat, I contribute regularly at DailyKos.com, and I voted for Barack Obama in the primary because Dennis Kucinich couldn't win.

The most recent indication was in April 2008, when a spokesman from the House Ethics Committee said that he was unaware of any ongoing investigation against Wilson. That is sourced reliably. We cannot claim that she is under investigation. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a quick Google search revealed this source which states she is the subject of an "ongoing ethics probe." This took me 2 seconds to find. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
K4T, I assumed good faith on your part regardless of whether you are in truth a Democrat, Republican or Monarchist; there isn't a need to assert this preemptively or defensively as it is completely irrelevant and equally impossible to verify. We are all encyclopedists striving to improve the article. As such, please discuss changes here in order to reach consensus, a method I'm sure you have learned at the Obama page. The lede states, reliably, that she is under preliminary investigation which is a different animal than a formal investigation. The clerk explicitly neither confirmed nor denied that a formal investigation was on-going but "hadn't been informed of one". I accordingly modified the lede to reflect that a formal investigation has not been confirmed. The Hill article used in the "Fired US attorneys" section indicates that the Justice Department is also investigating. As for Scjessey's source, The Public Record isn't a reliable source, which in this context is a published, mainstream newspaper/magazine known for fact checking. I believe we can modify the text to reflect more clearly the status of the investigation and shrink it to a level of a mention. I see no need to delete it entirely as mention of a controversy is allowable by WP:LEDE. May I suggest changing the text from:

Currently, she is under a preliminary investigation by the House Ethics Committee over an alleged inappropriate contact with the United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico by inquiring, shortly before an election in which she faced a stiff challenge, on the status of a corruption investigation involving a Democratic politician. However, an official investigation has not been confirmed.

to read:

Beginning in 2007, Wilson was under a preliminary investigation by the House Ethics Committee and the Justice Department over an alleged inappropriate contact with a United States Attorney. As of April 2008, a formal investigation by the House committee was unconfirmed.

Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 14:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Therefore -- the only thing that would make me suspect inappropriate editing is the unnecessary, strong, and unverifiable statement of political persuasion. The phrasing of this content clearly requires some attention, and I thank Kossack4Truth for raising the issue; beyond that, who we are or what we think of each other is not germane to the discussion.
A also agree with Therefore's rewrite, with one exception -- the last sentence is a bit awkward, making it sound like "unconfirmed" is a status of the investigation, rather than a statement about what is known. One possibility is being just a touch more specific there: "As of 2008, a spokesman for the committee refused to comment on the existence of an investigation."
But looking at the source, it doesn't strike me as something worthy of including in the lead at all. The spokesman, who is unidentified, is clearly protecting the committee's right to conduct its affairs without revealing every detail; based on that statement, it would entirely plausible that the committee simply didn't inform its spokesman of an investigation, specifically to protect its own ability to proceed without interference from the public.
The statement gives us no new information about the purported investigation. Furthermore, the source publication clearly regards it that way; the New Mexican did not base its article on the statement, but rather buried it deep in the article, without much comment. I believe that using this statement as a reason to alter the lead section of this article in any way would be a mistake. -Pete (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. I recommend changing the lede to read:

Beginning in 2007, Wilson was under a preliminary investigation by the House Ethics Committee and the Justice Department over an alleged inappropriate contact with a United States Attorney.

and changing the text of the article from:

However, in April 2008 a spokesperson for the House Ethics Committee said that he could neither comment on or verify the existence of an investigation of Wilson: "I haven't been informed of one."

to read, per Pete,:

As of 2008, a spokesman for the committee refused to comment on the existence of an investigation.

∴ Therefore | talk 15:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the article history, there are a few things that trouble me. First, there was the obvious and inexcusable BLP violation against Heather Wilson's husband, Jay Hone. Second, there was the discovery that several sentences of the text were lifted directly from the partisan anti-Wilson talking points of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Third, there's this latest failure to notice that there might not be any ongoing investigation at all. So I hope you understand why I might be a little concerned. We must not merely avoid bias. We must avoid the appearance that we might be biased. Play it safe, and keep this out of the lead of the article. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very curious analysis. Please don't make edit changes while there is an ongoing discussion here. You should instead participate in the above points vs. making declarative statements of dubious value and taking unilateral actions. Neither are in the spirit of Wikipedia. You have a history of contentious editing, violating the spirt and the letter of Wikipedia. Please, here, instead participate in the process. Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 11:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing "curious" about it. There have been three major screw-ups on this article, and all three made Wikipedia look like it's been annexed by MoveOn.org. If one of these mistakes had been in Heather Wilson's favor, I would certainly be more willing to give previous editors on this article greater deference. A direct quote from WP:BLP: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." The emphasis is in the original; I didn't add it.
The most recent reliable source cannot confirm that there is a current investigation. I notice there was no response to my Talk page post last night, but the instant I started editing the article again this morning, here you are in a heartbeat, reverting me. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, K4T, as you all to well know from your experiences at Obama, the objective is to seek consensus on the talk page. I'm really not going to combat you here. I will ask for admins support. I don't know what you mean by no response since this entire discussion in this section was in response so I'm flummoxed by your point. I revert you because you refuse to participate in this dicussion except with antagonism. ∴ Therefore | talk 12:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you profess to be familiar with the discussion at the Obama article, I'm sure you're aware that at Wikipedia, we don't do "Criticism and controversy" sections any more. I'll be back with a quote from Jimmy Wales on the topic. He's not the god of Wikipedia. Policy, such as WP:BLP, is the god of Wikipedia. But Jimbo's opinion seems to carry a lot of weight around here. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My concern right now is with your contentious editing and talk page practices. The issue here is whether the controversy should be mentioned in the lede. You revert without participating in the discussion. I am asking for admins help since I don't see you making a good faith effort to avoid edit warring or participating in a collegial manner on the talk page. ∴ Therefore | talk 12:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, [criticism and controversy sections] are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." - Jimmy Wales [1]
I will again cordially invite you to review WP:BLP: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." The emphasis is in the original; I didn't add it. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested admins support at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kossack4Truth. ∴ Therefore | talk 13:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I came here from WP:BLPN#Heather Wilson. I am concerned by edits that re-add this text. My concerns are:

  1. The information presented misrepresents the information in the source provided.
  2. Even if it was adequately sourced, "preliminary investigation ... over an alleged inappropriate contact" is of, at best, of unclear importance and could be garden-variety political gossip.
  3. Even if points 1 and 2 were addressed, putting this in the lede clearly causes NPOV problems.

Given the above, I would say that any edit which removed the problematic text (or substantially similar text) is not subject to the three-revert-rule. I certainly would not block any user who removed it regardless of how many times they did so. In contrast, repeatedly re-adding this obvious violation of the biographies of living persons policy is likely to result in enforcement of the policy by blocks and/or page protection. CIreland (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting silly. It's obvious we have some work to do in finding the right way to treat this matter; but the personal back-and-forth is not going to help us find the right balance. There's no reason to talk about blocking editors, nobody is acting in bad faith. If we have emerging revert war, we can just protect the article while we discuss it. And there is no "obvious" BLP violation, as every fact is supported by a source. Again, we may need to work on how we present those facts, how we phrase it, and how the article's structured; but it's not like anybody's seeking to defame Rep. Wilson. -Pete (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything inserted has been supported by a source - this is one of the key problems. CIreland (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm grateful that CIreland could help out with this matter from the WP:BLP noticeboard. The input of a previously uninvolved, well-established editor is welcome. It is also good to see that no one here wants to defame Rep. Wilson or her husband. I would like to see this preliminary investigation matter stay out of the article lead, at least until we can verify with a reliable source that an investigation is still ongoing in July 2008. That would be the least that BLP would require. Once we've verified that, we can discuss the NPOV implications that CIreland mentioned. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that CIreland's input will be helpful, but he/she has taken a couple positions that need a closer look. First, what -- specifically -- is the misrepresentation? Second, the conclusion that this issue does not belong in the lead section is premature. It may be that the sources currently cited don't make the best case for the item being discussed in the lead, but that it does belong there. We should look at that dispassionately, and not prejudge the best result. I don't know whether or not it belongs in the lead; I'm taking a fresh look at the news coverage of this issue. From what I've read thus far, there are some commentators who assert that Wilson's connection to this issue is the cause of her political downfall. David Iglesias has said that she is "damaged goods," a NY Times reporter has stated without equivocation that they talked to each other. The Washington Post reported that she called Iglesias, and that the call itself appeared to run afoul of House ethics rules regardless of its content. This article in The Hill is relevant. I'm still reading.
But Kossack's suggestion that an active 7/08 investigation is the appropriate standard for inclusion in the lead is arbitrary. The standard would be whether the issue was a significant event in the life of Heather Wilson. We have yet to determine conclusively whether or not that is the case. -Pete (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another interesting note -- according to Iglesias (who, obviously, is an interested party), there were five ongoing investigations relating to the issue as of May 2008. [2] -Pete (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The most specific coverage I've found stating that the outcome of the Wilson/Madrid race was the motivating factor behind political meddling with Iglesias' investigation: [3] -Pete (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the beginning of the section on this issue, trying to make it clearer how the issue relates to Wilson. Please take a look at what I did. -Pete (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Jennings"

[edit]

From the article: "In 2009, it was revealed that Iglesias was fired after an email from Wilson was circulated among Republican leaders that complained about Iglesias' lack of public corruption prosecutions in the run up to the midterm elections and then attached attaching a report about an FBI investigation of Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) as a point of contrast.[1] Then Jennings forwarded those messages to Rove and complained that Iglesias had been "shy about doing his job on [[[Patricia] Madrid|[Patricia] Madrid]]," Wilson's Democratic opponent in the 2006 congressional race.[2]"

Who's Jennings? The name appears nowhere else in the article. People need to be introduced with a full name somewhere before you start referring to them by their surname.

-24.240.73.77 (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- seems to me that the U.S. Attorney section was appropriately shortened following the conclusion of the case, and Scott Jennings' name was eliminated from the article entirely. -Pete (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Heather Wilson/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article is getting there, but needs some more citation (campaign ads and Janet Jackson controversy need work in particular). Needs a through look-over in terms of focus - is it concentrating too much on her controversies? Edofedinburgh 14:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 14:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 17:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

More current image of Pres. Heather Wilson

[edit]

I nominate the image of Heather Wilson from her President's message for the lede. It is more up-to-date than her Secretary of the Air Force portrait, gives an impression of the Bhutanese architecture of the UTEP campus (including some flagpoles for prayer flags), and even shows some mountains of the region in the background. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heather_Wilson&oldid=1269196014"