This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Heather Wilson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Edofedinburgh 14:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if you felt that was POV. Stern IS a talk radio giant, that doesn't mean I support him or hate Heather Wilson, or that I support Wilson and hate Howard Stean. -- JamesB3 15:34, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ip 66.166.243.37 - It is against the rules to make unsigned changes to a page. Blatently partisan attacks will be removed Bachs 00:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Please make this article less biased; it is difficult to compare both parties when one biography is basically an attack on the individual. Thanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.187.123 ( talk) 15:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
None of the allegations against DeLay have been proven. Ronnie Earle, the Tom Delay prosecutor, has a history of indictments against Democrat and Republican political enemies that have failed (see Kay Bailey Hutchison) and it has been widely reported that Earle had to shop the charges to several grand juries because some refused to indict. [1] One of the charges filed by Earle was summarily dismissed by trial judge Pat Priest. Earle has partnered up with producers making a movie, called The Big Buy, about his pursuit of DeLay that has been filming since before DeLay was notified of the charges. [2] [3] [4]
This was added because the added statement about Tom Delay is an unproven allegation that is used to make the member of congress guilty by association. Especially when there is much evidence that Ronnie Earle's indictments are politically motivated. You cannot include one side of an unproven allegation and not include the other, to do so would be unfair and biased. The best course of action is to leave any reference to DeLay on Tom Delay's page and not Heather's until this matter is resolved in a court of law.
Changed Delay Paragrapgh again in accoprdance with compromise with editor Roma
Now Reads
Wilson was the fourth largest recipient of former House Majority Leader DeLay's ARMPAC campaign contributions. DeLay is being prosecuted on charges of felony money laundering of campaign finances and conspiracy to launder money. To date, Wilson has returned less than a quarter of the $46,959 she received from ARMPAC. [5] [6] Republicans say that the charges against DeLay are politically motivated because prosecutor Ronnie Earle has a history of unsuccessful indictments against political enemies of both parties such as Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), and because it has been widely reported that Earle had to shop the charges to multiple grand juries because one refused to indict. [7] [8] Bachs 07:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe that this edit is overtly POV.
Wilson is supporting an amendment to the Toxic Substance Control Act sponsored by Representative Paul Gillmor (R-OH) that would set the stage for removing states' rights over public health protections from toxic chemicals, and would place the politically-appointed head of the EPA in authority over international treaty law. The EPA head is currently under attack for possible collusion with the pesticide industry for approval of pesticides without adequate scientific safety study. Wilson's votes would override her own state's existing legislation regarding protecting the public from toxic chemicals.
Main reasons:
- Vontafeijos 02:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I find it remarkable that the hullaballoo about the "missing documents" pointed out that it was a sexual allegation by a minor, in the section headline, but somehow failed to mention that when the documents finally surfaced, they showed that the department and the police thoroughly investigated and found that the allegation lacked sufficient credibility for criminal prosecution. All editors who were involved in that should review WP:BLP. Dino 22:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a question for discussion. It seems that this article fails to focus on Congresswoman Wilson's personal and legislative accomplishments, putting far too much emphasis on so-called "scandals" and other trivialities. Certainly, the current scandal involving the firing of the U.S. attorneys merits attention, but I don't think it's necessary to focus so much attention on it. Perhaps someone should include an excerpt of her explanation of the affair, contained on her website. Based on what it says, the call she made was far from an ethics violation, it was simply fulfilling her responsibilities to respond to the concerns of her constituents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrandall8 ( talk • contribs) 05:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
The entire section about "Jay Hone's hidden file" has been removed. It relies very heavily on an unreliable source: an unofficial transcript of an interview, created and emailed to "Democracy in New Mexico" by an unidentified person. WP:BLP does not allow such an unreliable source to be used to accuse Jay Hone, a living person, of being a child molester and his wife, Heather Wilson, another living person, of official misconduct. Kzq9599 03:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
What "ongoing investigation"? These events occurred in 1996. That was 11 years ago. In federal court, the statute of limitations is five years. In New Mexico state court, it's even less. If there's an "ongoing investigation," it's a witch hunt by left-wing bloggers and nothing more. This story "resurfaced" on October 20, 2006 because there was an election less than three weeks later. This was political theater by the Patricia Madrid campaign and by her sympathizers in the Albuquerque news media. It failed to achieve its goal: Heather Wilson won re-election. The fact that Heather Wilson's political enemies dug up this rotting old corpse of a charge, and tried to smear it in her face one more time, is a reflection on how down and dirty the Democratic Party was willing to go in order to win. Why do you insist on dragging Wikipedia down to that gutter level of politics? Kzq9599 01:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
is under a preliminary investigation by the House Ethics Committee over whether she made 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. [9]
That's the "dismissal of US attorneys" investigation, an entirely different matter. If this "Jay Hone the child molester" story had any legs, both Hone and Wilson would have been prosecuted and thrown in prison in 1996: Hone for sexual battery, and Wilson for official misconduct. They weren't. This is being brought up now in an attempt to dig up dirt on Wilson, to discredit her during the "dismissal of US attorneys" case. Wikipedia should not allow itself to be used as a vehicle for this political chicanery. Also, if it's available on Lexis/Nexis, you should have used that as your source instead of this partisan left-wing blog. The fact that you elected to use the left-wing blog's unofficial transcript, rather than the official transcript you claim to be available on a reliable, non-partisan source, doesn't look good. Kzq9599 01:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
When you mentioned "ongoing investigation," I didn't realize that you were talking about the article lede. I removed that, because it doesn't belong in the lede. The section about the "dismissal of US attorneys" is still in the body of the article, where it belongs. The MoveOn.org and DailyKos.com partisans can be relied upon to dig up this "Jay Hone is a child molester" story three weeks before every election. The Albuquerque Journal story was in response to the fact that the MoveOn.org and DailyKos.com partisans dug it up:
Dailykos.com, rawstory.com and dukecityfix.com carried items on the issue, generating hundreds of blogger responses and a string of anonymous calls to the Journal. However, the police report in question was never lost: It remains a public file at the Albuquerque Police Department. The story now being trumpeted in cyberspace was reported in 1996 by then-KOAT Action 7 News reporter Larry Barker and also was reported on by the Journal in 1996 and 1998. Let's start at the beginning: Wilson's husband, Jay Hone, is a longtime youth mentor and was named in a 1993 APD report involving him and a male who was then 16 years old. Hone was not arrested or charged with any crime, and the Journal elected not to print specifics from the report.
Wilson, who is seeking re-election this year in a tough battle with Democratic Attorney General Patricia Madrid, served as head of the state Children, Youth and Families Department from 1995 to 1998 before winning her first election to the 1st Congressional District seat in 1998. During Wilson's first week as CYFD secretary, she ordered a file involving Hone's role as a foster parent to be moved from an Albuquerque warehouse to the CYFD offices at the Capitol. A family friend has said that file contained the 1993 police report.
Then-Bernalillo County District Attorney Bob Schwartz was critical of Wilson's handling of the file. "The problem is when a public employee uses their official capacity to go ahead and take care of a personal problem," Schwartz was quoted as saying in an Aug. 9, 1996 Journal story. "There is a specific statutory frame on how these things are to be handled," he said. Although still critical of her actions, Schwartz in a 1998 Journal story said Wilson did not break the law when she moved the report.
Isn't it funny how Schwartz admitted that the law was not broken, but that admission didn't find its way into the Wikipedia article? Both Jay Hone and Heather Wilson were cleared by law enforcement. This story only "resurfaced" due to the partisan actions of left-wing blogs rather than the Albuquerque Journal. Their political chicanery should not be rewarded by being permanently enshrined in Wilson's Wikipedia biography, which is supposed to be NPOV. Kzq9599 13:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
You are posting partisan political theater from DailyKos.com and I have reverted it. The story you've linked in the Albuquerque Journal was commenting on the political chicanery by DailyKos.com and clearly indicated that this was a dead story. It was about a child molesting accusation from 14 years ago. No charges were filed, no arrests were made, and county prosecutor Schwartz admitted that when Wilson moved the file, no laws were broken. The alleged "victim" is now 30 years old, and didn't want to press charges in the first place.
I am beginning to suspect that you're a paid political operative from the Patricia Madrid campaign. I've reverted your political chicanery again. It has no place in an encyclopedia, except under the heading, "Dirty Tricks by DailyKos.com." You have cited WP:V but you conveniently avoid any mention of WP:NPOV and especially WP:BLP. Kzq9599 23:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
You mention that "conflating notability with legality is wrong." I say that DailyKos.com does not decide for us what's notable and what is not. Their timing, three weeks before the 2006 election, reveals their political motive. WP:BLP forbids inclusion of this material in an encyclopedia article about living persons. Both Wilson and Hone were cleared by the appropriate law enforcement authorities. I am reporting this to the WP:BLP Noticeboard, the Administrators' Noticeboard, and an administrator. Kzq9599 23:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
I have deleted the allegation concerning a 1990 incident as a WP:BLP violation. Newyorkbrad 23:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Brad, the only possible motivation for it is indicated by the original source (DailyKos.com) and the timing (three weeks before the 2006 election). The Albuquerque Journal story was in response to the carefully timed political theater (known as astroturfing ) by DailyKos.com, and the Journal's tone clearly indicated that this was a long dead story. This political chicanery should not be rewarded by being permanently enshrined in Wilson's Wikipedia article. Kzq9599 00:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
I'm in agreement that this section is given too much attention in the article. The controversy is noteworthy but not that it has "resurfaced." It is irrelevant whether the blog is left- or right-wing. Resurfacing of controversies are a 24/7 occurrence. I disagree with the current edit war -- instead, discussion of possible rewrites should be done until a consensus can be met. To start, "Critics have long...." is a violation of WP:AWW. The length and detail of the section is a violation of WP:UNDUE. That this section is the same length as the controversy about the AGs, a much more serious controversy, I think we can agree, shows this section is out of balance. Arguably, this section depends upon sensationalism, which is a violation of WP:NPOV.
Let me add, for Kzq9599, to remember WP:Assume good faith.
So, I suggest that we use the discussion page to see if a consensus is possible before going to other avenues (say, WP:RFC) to resolve this.
Here is my suggested rewrite:
In 1996, while working as the Secretary of the State of New Mexico's Department of Children, Youth and Families, Wilson removed a confidential file from the Department's central location which included allegations involving her husband. When news reports revealed the removal, Wilson, after first denying, admitted doing so. In 1998, Wilson's Democratic opponent alleged in a campaign ad that Wilson had abused her authority by moving the file. [15]
Details are all there in the ABQ article. Skip all the other cites.
Thoughts? Therefore 00:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the section dealing with accusations against Jay Hone, no charges were ever filed. Do not add this material back per WP:BLP Thanks. RxS 00:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Schwartz is a Democrat. He was the county prosecutor at the time. He produced a lot of lightning and thunder but, in the end, he admitted that no laws were broken when the file was moved. Jay Hone is not a public figure, and all indications are that he has served honorably as a foster parent. He shouldn't have this accusation following him around the rest of his life simply because his wife is a member of Congress, and there are despicable political partisans out these who are scraping the Internet for any dirt they can dig up on her. This is America. Both Wilson and Hone are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Wikipedia should not be used for this partisan witch hunt. Kzq9599 00:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Here's my comment: I've already edited the section in question. It presents all the facts fairly, without innuendo. In particular, Wilson's motive for moving the file and the fact that it was "moved," not "removed," have been made clear. Take a look at my version and let's see what you think. I object to including this section at all since the Democratic district attorney admitted she broke no law. But evidently consensus favors including it if the child molesting allegations against Jay Hone are excluded. Kzq9599 01:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
to kzq -- should I assume in good faith you have read my suggested rewrite? I would like to hear from you about your concerns. Here is its current state:
In 1996, while working as the Secretary of the State of New Mexico's Department of Children, Youth and Families, Wilson removed a confidential file from the Department's central location which included allegations involving her husband. When news reports revealed the removal, Wilson, after first denying, admitted doing so. In 1998, Wilson's Democratic opponent alleged in a campaign ad that Wilson had abused her authority by moving the file. [20] [21] [22]
I would like to suggest that we all place Therefore's version on main page, and temporarily restrict all editing to this "talk" page. If others agree with that approach, please say so. If a good number of people accept that approach, I suggest that an admin enforce WP:3RR for any editor who subsequently edits the main page prior to some kind of consensus being reached here. A specific time frame might be helpful - how about a 24 hour block on edits? - Pete 01:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Therefore and Pete, I've read Therefore's version and I've been trying use the word "moved" rather than "removed" from the very beginning, due to the connotations concern that Shoesss has raised. I believe that an acceptable compromise has worked itself out in the article mainspace. I am still concerned about WP:UNDUE, however. WP:UNDUE is not susceptible to consensus decisions. It is policy; and even if we were all unanimous in agreeing that it should be in there, in my opinion Wikipedia policy requires its removal. Kzq9599 01:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Arbustoo, Wilson stated that her motivation for removing it was that she didn't want every employee in the department to have access to her family's personal information. Readers can understand that without citing the contents of the file. Therefore, I would accept your rewrite as a temporary measure until we can work out a permanent solution, if you add a sentence indicating that neither Wilson nor Hone was ever charged with any crime, despite extensive investigations by at least three agencies: Albuquerque PD, Bernalillo County DA's office, and DCYF. Kzq9599 01:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
We have to make it absolutely crystal clear, at all times, that no laws were broken. I have answered the central question posed in this section and I'll repeat my answer: I would accept your rewrite as a temporary measure until we can work out a permanent solution, if you add a sentence indicating that neither Wilson nor Hone was ever charged with any crime, despite extensive investigations by at least three agencies: Albuquerque PD, Bernalillo County DA's office, and DCYF. Kzq9599 01:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Isn't this implicit with "alleged"? Therefore 02:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
A lot of issues get raised in elections. That doesn't make each and every one of them notable, or otherwise appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia biography. In Bill Clinton's article, the allegations about Monica Lewinsky merit very little coverage. There is no mention of those allegations in the lede of the article. Clinton admitted that he made false statements under oath (perjury is a felony) and he was impeached for it. Use that article as a guide regarding WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Kzq9599 02:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Arbustoo, the Lewinsky scandal isn't in the lede of the Bill Clinton article, even though he was impeached for it. The Bill Clinton article is sufficiently high-profile that a lot of very experienced editors and admins have weighed in on it, and it is a fair representation of our policies here at Wikipedia. In Wilson's case, the "fired US attorneys" case is just in the preliminary investigation stage and half of the lede is devoted to it. Kzq9599 02:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
To Shoessss -- Sorry about that. The version I used in the article uses the word "move" not "removal." I think if you look above, I agreed to this change a while ago. Therefore 02:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a strawman, Arbustoo. Neither Shoessss nor I want to model this article after Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies, Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, Impeachment of Bill Clinton and Lewinsky scandal because those are not biographies. Heather Wilson is a biography. We want to model this biography after other biographies, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Clinton. Neither one of those two biographies mentions any scandal in the article lede. Kzq9599 02:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Wikipedia articles are not modeled after one another, they are crafted in accordance with policies and, generally, guidelines. Articles of various quality and political bents could be used to justify any argument; but those justifications are not acceptable. If you guys want to continue this irrelevant line of discussion, I encourage you to do so on your talk pages. - Pete 03:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
kzq -- I thought we agreed to discuss changes first here on the talk page?? Therefore 02:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, how many of you voted for Kerry? Kzq9599 02:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
In light of the input from Newyorkbrad concerning WP:BLP, how many of you are still going to accuse me of vandalizing the article? Kzq9599 02:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Let's all assume good faith, at least for a moment, and proceed under the assumption that nobody here is going to tamper with the article while we discuss it.
I would like to take a stab at breaking down the remaining issues to be discussed, and keep each in its own section, so we don't rehash things too much. Please comment on my breakdown, and make additions if I've left anything out.
Also, in recognition of Kzq9599's objection, I put a Neutrality template at the top of the section in question. - Pete 03:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
As it stands. Shoessss 03:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that it was used in a political campaign issue is sufficient. Therefore 03:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's notable, but that's not the only hurdle that has to be cleared. It's notable because some Democrats scraped the bottom of the sewer for some mud to sling. Kzq9599 03:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
(also by Kzq9599): The entire section is also a violation of WP:UNDUE because no laws were broken and the story is 14 years old. Kzq9599 03:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
I disagree. The local news media do not define notability for us. And I will remind you again that notability is only one hurdle that must be cleared. Neither Jay Hone nor Heather Wilson did anything wrong. DailyKos.com can be expected to make this issue mysteriously "resurface" three weeks before every election. On this most recent occasion, the general public had been whipped into a frenzy by the Mark Foley scandal, involving an inappropriate contact with another 16-year-old boy. Timing is everything. This belongs in the Daily Kos article under an " Astroturfing in New Mexico" section header, but it doesn't belong here because of WP:UNDUE. Kzq9599 11:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Since Bob Schwartz, Democratic district attorney, has admitted that Heather Wilson didn't break any laws, the entire section is a WP:BLP violation. Kzq9599 03:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
I'm from Australia, so I have little interest in American politics except as a detached (and sometimes amazed) observer. I am posting my response on the WP:BLPN noticeboard and I hope you will all take it to heart:
Even if there is a reliable source proving that the Patricia Madrid campaign tried to use this as a campaign issue in 2006, it should be removed from the article. Since Madrid did not win the election, she didn’t get any traction with this issue even if she used it. All editors agree that no laws were broken by either Wilson or her husband. The allegation against Wilson’s husband was never proven. He was never even arrested. In the current atmosphere created by the Mark Foley scandal, this allegation is completely poisonous. We shouldn’t even touch it unless we’re forced to do so. By using this material, we would be forced to provide links to news articles that explore details of the unproven allegations against Wilson’s husband, who is a private person.
This issue is decided by the prejudicial effect of hanging this unproven allegation around the neck of Wilson’s husband for the rest of his life. That prejudicial effect far outweighs any benefit to the article that might be gained from including a campaign issue about his wife. The section must be removed. If Wilson’s husband had been arrested and brought to trial, that would be different. If Wilson had broken the law by moving the file, that would also be different. The burden of probable cause would have been satisfied at least. But we don’t even have that much here. Obviously the authorities concluded that no crime was committed, so it should be kept out of the article. It's a close call, but in articles about living persons we must err on the side of caution. Delete the whole section. If readers are so very interested in seeking out scandal, they can use Google to find what they want to find; Wikipedia should refrain from helping them. NeilinOz1 20:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
In 1998, the Democratic candidate's campaign agreed that the ads were inappropriate and they voluntarily pulled the ads. So the existence of the ad doesn't legitimize the mention in the Wikipedia article. Neil makes a good argument. This shouldn't be included here. Kzq9599 01:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
In addition to the opinions of NeilinOz1 and Newyordbrad, Thatcher131 has made the following statement on WP:ANI. Like Newyorkbrad, Thatcher131 is an administrator:
It seems to me that 15 year old allegations, which were never proven, or even brought to trial, and were only resurfaced for purposes of politically attacking the spouse of a non-public figure, have no place on Wikipedia. [32]
The section of this article that mentions the DCFY file and its movement must be deleted. Thatcher131 mentions a previous ruling by the Arbitration Committee that involved a very permissive interepretation of WP:BLP by Arbustoo. The Arbitration Committee has ruled against Arbustoo in the past and would be likely to do so again. Wikipedia policy is not vulnerable to consensus, even if you had consensus. We have no choice. The disputed section must be removed. Kzq9599 01:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
As it stands. Shoessss 03:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
No use should be made of his name, nor of the allegations, directly or indirectly. The cites can fill in the blanks. What is relevant is the movement of the file, not the specific, sensational allegations. Therefore 03:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Posting a link to an Albuquerque Journal article detailing the allegations is a violation of WP:BLP with respect to Jay Hone. Kzq9599 03:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
(consensus box moved down to bottom of section)
Hope I'm not being too bold with the box I put in above. If I'm in error, feel free to remove it and state your objection. - Pete 04:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Please note, I'm not proposing we use that text, just trying to illustrate to Arbustoo that the name need not be included to make the point. - Pete 04:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
CONSENSUS REACHED: Husband's name, and details of allegations against him, should not be mentioned in the section about document (re)moval. |
Per Uncle G's comments below, the section title must be changed as well to comply with this agreement. Suggestions, anyone? - Pete 15:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
"""Moved""" I believe everyone knows my Opinion on that. I’m done beating that dead horse. Shoessss 03:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Barker: “Did you order, this…a record…removed?" Wilson: “No.” Barker, “So this is totally inaccurate?" Wilson: “Yes."
Should state that a finding of "No" laws were broken. Shoessss 03:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The use of the term "alleged" makes this clear. Possibly, adding in the "no laws were broken" elevates suspicion. But, I don't have strong opinions on this. Just keep it short. Therefore 03:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
That is the deciding factor. Because no law was broken, mudslinging Democratic partisans should not be rewarded for their mudslinging by permanently enshrining it here. 03:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't mean it should be included in the article. If every action of every politician that was found to be "questionable" by a politician of the opposing party was exchaustively listed in Wikipedia articles, we'd burn up the bandwidth fast. Every article about a member of Congress would be 10,000 words long; presidents would have to get 20,000 or 30,000 words. This is a manufactured issue. Opponents' political theater does not belong in a Wikipedia biography about a politician. Kzq9599 11:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
It seems pretty clear to me from reading both of the ABQ Journal articles that Hone's wish is not to be a public figure, and that the contents of the file are not a matter of public record. There is no need for the content of this article to focus upon Hone at all. As such, even the title of the section is bad. The focus should be the election campaign, which is an entirely proper subject for a biographical article about a politician, and Wilson and Maloof. I suggest the following, dealing with the subject in exactly the same way that the other elections are dealt with, and which should be placed alongside them:
Phil Maloof, Wilson's Democratic Party opponent in the United States House elections, 1998, placed advertisments during the election campaign alleging that Wilson, whilst working in 1996 as the Secretary of the State of the Children Youth & Families Department, New Mexico, had abused her authority by moving a confidential file whose contents involved her husband from a warehouse to the department's offices in the Capitol. This allegation was reported on television and the subject became a campaign issue during the election. Wilson stated that the file contained personal information about her family that she did not want department employees to have ready access to, for fear that it might be stolen or given to people who did not have the legal right to read it; and stated that she did not read the file's contents, open it, nor remove it from the department's offices, and that she did not attempt to deny access to it by department staff who were legally entitled to read it. She decried the advertisements as attacks upon her family. Former District Attorney Bob Schwartz, who had investigated the matter in August 1996, stated that Wilson had broken no laws, and that his investigation had revealed that, as Wilson stated, the file was intact and had not been tampered with. Whilst Maloof's campaign advertisment did not allege that Wilson had broken the law, it stating that Wilson had "abused her position of power", a consultant for his campaign did make such an allegation in an interview on a radio show broadcast by KOB-AM, a local radio station. The allegation was later described by a spokesman for Maloof as a mistake by that staff member. Both Wilson and Maloof agreed to abandon their negative advertising in June 1998.
- Leslie Linthicum ( 1998-07-19). "Friends Say Wilson's Husband Content on Sidelines". Albuquerque Journal.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)- Leslie Linthicum ( 1998-07-17). "Former DA Says Wilson Broke No Law Over File". Albuquerque Journal.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)
Uncle G 14:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore: Remember that there is a point where trimming out things distorts the account of events and causes non-neutrality. And you're doing exactly that by focusing upon trying to make the wording small instead of trying to make the coverage neutral. The current text quite rightly sports a non-neutrality notice. It doesn't present Wilson's position on what she did, documented quite extensively in the sources, at all. That's something that is presented by the suggested text above (in addition to presenting enough of the issue to document Maloof's position properly, too). To be neutral, the article has to be more comprehensive than the current text has it, so that it covers all of the sides to the issue. That means longer than the current text. "Short" and "neutral" are not synonyms.
Here's a short primer in the practical application of undue weight: It is undue weight to state that Wilson moved a file and to simply state that it was alleged that this was an abuse of authority without presenting her stated reasons for actually doing so; because it gives undue weight to the single view that it was improper, when another different view (documented in the sources, notice) is that it was entirely proper, and that the correct people were consulted about moving the file. It is undue weight to state that Wilson denied and then admitted moving the file, because it gives undue weight to the single view that she actually did that at all, when another different view (again, documented in the sources) is that moving a file to a place within the department where it is inaccessible to those not legally entitled to read it, whilst keeping it accessible to those who are legally entitled to read it, is not the same as removing a file from the department.
Present the current biased account simply in the name of being brief, and you'll quite rightly suffer a constant onslaught of editors trying to correct that bias. Present a comprehensive account, on the other hand, and you'll not only have less grounds for people to raise complaints, you'll also inform readers (who may have come here after reading only a one-sided account elsewhere, whenever someone chooses to selectively re-hash these events for partisan purposes) fully and fairly about the entire issue of the negative advertising in the 1998 campaign and the conclusion of the affair, making Wikipedia go up in their estimation. ☺ Uncle G 00:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Please review my previous remarks about WP:BLP as relates to Wilson. This section is more of a liability than an asset to the article. It should be removed. NeilinOz1 20:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
This case was investigated by three different agencies and no arrests were made. Uncle G says that in order to deal with the topic fairly, we have to use nearly 300 words. It's impossible to include even 100 words without violating WP:UNDUE. There will still be abundant criticism arising from the "fired US attorneys" investigations. Kzq9599 00:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
NeilinOz1 (from the WP:BLPN noticeboard), plus Thatcher131 and Newyorkbrad (who are admins and clerks for the Arbitration Committee) have all said that the section needs to be removed. So the section needs to be removed. Kzq9599 02:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
In 1996, while working as the Secretary, Wilson moved a confidential file whose contents involved her husband from the Department's central location. When a local news station reported this, Wilson stated that she didn't "remove" the file. Her spokesman said her intent was to safeguard, not remove, its contents from illegal access. In 1998, Wilson's Democratic opponent alleged in a campaign ad that Wilson had abused her authority by moving the file, an allegation she vehemently denied.
The article lede should follow the examples of Democratic politicians who have received a lot of attention here, such as Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton. There isn't any mention of their many scandals in the ledes of their biographies, despite an impeachment and an admission of making false statements under oath. Therefore there should be no mention of a preliminary Ethics Committee investigation in the lede of this article. Kzq9599 03:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
I set up a new section entirely. I started a new section with the headline, "The article lede." Kzq9599 03:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Then we should use Frank Ballance as a guide. No considerations about article length there. House member, just like Heather Wilson. The guy is currently serving a four-year federal prison sentence for a crime he committed while serving in public office. But there's no mention of that in the lede of the article. By the way, he's a Democrat. Kzq9599 03:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
The Clinton articles have received a lot of attention from experienced editors and administrators. For that reason, I believe they are a fair representation of what Wikipedia policy requires in biographies about living politicians. Kzq9599 03:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Significant current events are frequently found in the lede. Examples: Delta_Zeta, Duke Cunningham. To quote from WP:LS:
"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." [emphasis mine]
Therefore 05:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Duke Cunningham's conviction and prison sentence are just as much "current events" as Frank Ballance's. But Cunningham is a Republican and Ballance is a Democrat. Kzq9599 11:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Hey guys. Wikipedia is not here to smear people. If negative information of any kind is causing an edit war it's best not to include it WPBio 19:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
It seems as though there isn't any consensus one way or the other. WPbio isn't "stirring up serious trouble." He's expressing his opinion about a content dispute and we're working it out. He has a right to express his opinion. Kzq9599 01:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
As a long-time editor on the Hillary Rodham Clinton article, I can say that the reason that article's lede doesn't mention any of her "scandals" is that in none of them was she ever charged with anything, much less found guilty. Wasted Time R 22:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
You hit the nail on the head. Heather Wilson hasn't been charged with anything, much less found guilty. Kzq9599 00:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Now that the three user accounts have been blocked as being tied to a partisan source with disruptive behavior I am removing the tag as no one here has a problem. If I am wrong feel free to explain what issues you have. Arbustoo 01:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The page will become unprotected soon, and I'd like to make sure that we get a change that has wide support made as soon as possible. The big problem, as agreed by (I think) everyone, is that the current section about Wilson's re/moving a file names her husband in its heading. This is not relevant to the current article, and may violate Wikipedia policy as regards her husband.
I believe that everyone would agree that the following resolution is an improvement over the current state of the page. Some, like Uncle G, may want to go further - and I'm not saying that discussion should be cut short. I just want to make sure that where there is broad consensus, the change actually gets made.
The existing paragraph should be moved such that it is chronological in the summary of Wilson's career. It should have no heading at all, or if it does, the heading should be "1998 election."
Agreed? (Subject to continued discussion about further refinements) - Pete 00:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
That is why articles separate out the controversial issues into their own section. 2) I'll summarize my reasons for moving to Career -- the details are above. I'm interested in lessening the gravity of this event because it pales in comparison to the US Attorney controversy, it fits chronologically in Career, it flows from the 1st paragraph and this is a compromise so that the paragraph not be excised. Therefore 06:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[I]t can be handy to separate the non-controversial contributions from the controversial ones. First make the non-controversial edits and then the (suspected) controversial ones.
Now that the page is unprotected, I changed the title to read "DCYF file." That was the consensus at least on that issue. Therefore 04:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Would there be an objection if I replaced the current paragraph with this slightly expanded one that incorporates many of the discussions from above?
In 1996, while working as the Secretary, Wilson moved a confidential file whose contents involved her husband from the Department's central location. When a local news station reported this, Wilson stated that she didn't "remove" the file. Her spokesman said her intent was to safeguard, not remove, its contents from illegal access. In 1998, Wilson's Democratic opponent alleged in a campaign ad that Wilson had abused her authority by moving the file, an allegation she vehemently denied.
And then we can discuss from there? Or is it best to keep the paragraph as is? Therefore 20:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
If there were additional follow up questions where the interviewer gave her a chance to distinguish between move and remove, I don't have a good citation. It would be invaluable to have a transcript of that show."Did you order this, a record removed?" Wilson responded, "No."
Therefore 00:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)In 1996, while working as the Secretary, Wilson moved a confidential file whose contents involved her husband from the Department's central location. When a local news station reported this, Wilson stated that she didn't "remove" the file. In a 1998
, in acampaign ad, Wilson's Democratic opponent charged that Wilson lied with that statement and that her act was an abuse of power,anallegations she vehemently denied. Wilson's spokesman said her intent was to safeguard, not remove, its contents from illegal access.
I deleted this paragraph:
Wilson's appeal for more oversight came nearly two months after existence of the terrorist spying program first became publicly known. Some believe that her late outcry became politically necessary due to the increased heat coming from Wilson's first formidable election opponent, Attorney General Patricia Madrid. citation needed In the days before Wilson spoke up, Madrid's campaign released both a fund-raising report showing Madrid had out-raised Wilson in the previous financial quarter and a poll putting the two candidates in a statistical tie. [1] [2]
for the following reasons:
Articles need sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are insufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article.
Find a reliable, verifiable source to support this paragraph, rewrite it using NPOV style (e.g., so-and-so said .....). Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 20:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
References
This quotation fragment:
Wilson was reportedly "forced to change committees because she offended… Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, by siding with Democrats…. 'He told me I was too independent,' said Wilson." - Albuquerque Tribune, 1/27/05
is from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee: [42]. I suggest a rewrite using the online Albuquerque Journal instead. If someone would like to type in more of the Tribune article (i.e., sans ellipsis) that would help. How about this:
According to the Albuquerque Journal in 2004, Wilson exhibited "political independence" by voting to require the Bush administration to release the cost figures for his prescription drug plan, lecturing the Republican Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfield, about the importance of the Geneva Conventions during a hearing about the Abu Ghraib scandal and by opposing a move by House Republicans to protect Tom Delay from his fundraising scandal. Although critics said these were calculated moves to moderate her image for her upcoming election, she lost her seat on the House Armed Services Committee due to the actions of Republican Joe Barton, an ally of Delay. [43] [44] [45]
Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 02:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
is also lifted verbatim from the above DCCC site. IMO, this should be removed as a Wikipedia:Copyright violations or rewritten with a better source than "2004 Wilson ad". I would rewrite it as:during her 2004 re-election campaign, Wilson ran an ad in which an individual said, "Heather Wilson is the most independent politician I have ever known…she is non-partisan." Additionally, she ran an ad in with John McCain who said, "Heather is also an independent thinker, and like me has been known to buck her own party…"
and leave it at that. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 02:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Wilson often describes herself as an "independent". [46]
but I'm open to a change. How about this for the new paragraph:1st District congresswoman willing to pay the price for her political independence
Better? ∴ Therefore | talk 22:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)According to the Congressional Quarterly, from 2001 to 2004, Wilson voted in agreement with the Republican Party at least 90 percent of the time. [1] On the other hand, Wilson often describes herself as an "independent". [47] The Albuquerque Journal in 2004, reported on several instances where Wilson acted in
contrastopposition to Republican interests by voting to require the Bush administration to release the cost figures for his prescription drug plan, lecturing the Republican Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfield, about the importance of the Geneva Conventions during a hearing about the Abu Ghraib scandal and by opposing a move by House Republicans to protect Tom Delay from his fundraising scandal. Although critics said these were calculated moves to moderate her image for her upcoming election, she lost her seat on the House Armed Services Committee due to the actions of Republican Joe Barton, an ally of Delay. [48] [49] [50]
Yes, that's good, seems to capture all sides pretty well. I'd rewrite the last sentence without the "Although," which seems out of place. Maybe just two separate sentences, without any implied link? - Pete 22:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
However, I don't hold a strong opinion on this matter and am happy with it as is. Thanks! I hope you're enjoying this weather as much as I. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)To critics, Wilson's high-profile displays of political independence seemed like a calculated attempt to soften her image in Albuquerque's moderate 1st Congressional District. It's a charge Wilson vigorously disputes. But no matter what her motivation, Wilson's recent breaks with GOP leadership on sensitive issues appear to have come at a cost. Last week, she lost her seat on the House Armed Services Committee.
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
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)
In this case, arguably, this link provides backup for said section. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 04:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)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.)?
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)
to read: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.
Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 14:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)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.
and changing the text of the article from: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.
to read, per Pete,: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."
∴ Therefore | talk 15:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)As of 2008, a spokesman for the committee refused to comment on the existence of an investigation.
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)
Note: I came here from WP:BLPN#Heather Wilson. I am concerned by edits that re-add this text. My concerns are:
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)
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)
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)
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) |
Last edited at 14:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 17:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Heather Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Heather Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Heather Wilson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Edofedinburgh 14:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if you felt that was POV. Stern IS a talk radio giant, that doesn't mean I support him or hate Heather Wilson, or that I support Wilson and hate Howard Stean. -- JamesB3 15:34, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ip 66.166.243.37 - It is against the rules to make unsigned changes to a page. Blatently partisan attacks will be removed Bachs 00:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Please make this article less biased; it is difficult to compare both parties when one biography is basically an attack on the individual. Thanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.187.123 ( talk) 15:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
None of the allegations against DeLay have been proven. Ronnie Earle, the Tom Delay prosecutor, has a history of indictments against Democrat and Republican political enemies that have failed (see Kay Bailey Hutchison) and it has been widely reported that Earle had to shop the charges to several grand juries because some refused to indict. [1] One of the charges filed by Earle was summarily dismissed by trial judge Pat Priest. Earle has partnered up with producers making a movie, called The Big Buy, about his pursuit of DeLay that has been filming since before DeLay was notified of the charges. [2] [3] [4]
This was added because the added statement about Tom Delay is an unproven allegation that is used to make the member of congress guilty by association. Especially when there is much evidence that Ronnie Earle's indictments are politically motivated. You cannot include one side of an unproven allegation and not include the other, to do so would be unfair and biased. The best course of action is to leave any reference to DeLay on Tom Delay's page and not Heather's until this matter is resolved in a court of law.
Changed Delay Paragrapgh again in accoprdance with compromise with editor Roma
Now Reads
Wilson was the fourth largest recipient of former House Majority Leader DeLay's ARMPAC campaign contributions. DeLay is being prosecuted on charges of felony money laundering of campaign finances and conspiracy to launder money. To date, Wilson has returned less than a quarter of the $46,959 she received from ARMPAC. [5] [6] Republicans say that the charges against DeLay are politically motivated because prosecutor Ronnie Earle has a history of unsuccessful indictments against political enemies of both parties such as Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), and because it has been widely reported that Earle had to shop the charges to multiple grand juries because one refused to indict. [7] [8] Bachs 07:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe that this edit is overtly POV.
Wilson is supporting an amendment to the Toxic Substance Control Act sponsored by Representative Paul Gillmor (R-OH) that would set the stage for removing states' rights over public health protections from toxic chemicals, and would place the politically-appointed head of the EPA in authority over international treaty law. The EPA head is currently under attack for possible collusion with the pesticide industry for approval of pesticides without adequate scientific safety study. Wilson's votes would override her own state's existing legislation regarding protecting the public from toxic chemicals.
Main reasons:
- Vontafeijos 02:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I find it remarkable that the hullaballoo about the "missing documents" pointed out that it was a sexual allegation by a minor, in the section headline, but somehow failed to mention that when the documents finally surfaced, they showed that the department and the police thoroughly investigated and found that the allegation lacked sufficient credibility for criminal prosecution. All editors who were involved in that should review WP:BLP. Dino 22:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a question for discussion. It seems that this article fails to focus on Congresswoman Wilson's personal and legislative accomplishments, putting far too much emphasis on so-called "scandals" and other trivialities. Certainly, the current scandal involving the firing of the U.S. attorneys merits attention, but I don't think it's necessary to focus so much attention on it. Perhaps someone should include an excerpt of her explanation of the affair, contained on her website. Based on what it says, the call she made was far from an ethics violation, it was simply fulfilling her responsibilities to respond to the concerns of her constituents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrandall8 ( talk • contribs) 05:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
The entire section about "Jay Hone's hidden file" has been removed. It relies very heavily on an unreliable source: an unofficial transcript of an interview, created and emailed to "Democracy in New Mexico" by an unidentified person. WP:BLP does not allow such an unreliable source to be used to accuse Jay Hone, a living person, of being a child molester and his wife, Heather Wilson, another living person, of official misconduct. Kzq9599 03:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
What "ongoing investigation"? These events occurred in 1996. That was 11 years ago. In federal court, the statute of limitations is five years. In New Mexico state court, it's even less. If there's an "ongoing investigation," it's a witch hunt by left-wing bloggers and nothing more. This story "resurfaced" on October 20, 2006 because there was an election less than three weeks later. This was political theater by the Patricia Madrid campaign and by her sympathizers in the Albuquerque news media. It failed to achieve its goal: Heather Wilson won re-election. The fact that Heather Wilson's political enemies dug up this rotting old corpse of a charge, and tried to smear it in her face one more time, is a reflection on how down and dirty the Democratic Party was willing to go in order to win. Why do you insist on dragging Wikipedia down to that gutter level of politics? Kzq9599 01:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
is under a preliminary investigation by the House Ethics Committee over whether she made 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. [9]
That's the "dismissal of US attorneys" investigation, an entirely different matter. If this "Jay Hone the child molester" story had any legs, both Hone and Wilson would have been prosecuted and thrown in prison in 1996: Hone for sexual battery, and Wilson for official misconduct. They weren't. This is being brought up now in an attempt to dig up dirt on Wilson, to discredit her during the "dismissal of US attorneys" case. Wikipedia should not allow itself to be used as a vehicle for this political chicanery. Also, if it's available on Lexis/Nexis, you should have used that as your source instead of this partisan left-wing blog. The fact that you elected to use the left-wing blog's unofficial transcript, rather than the official transcript you claim to be available on a reliable, non-partisan source, doesn't look good. Kzq9599 01:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
When you mentioned "ongoing investigation," I didn't realize that you were talking about the article lede. I removed that, because it doesn't belong in the lede. The section about the "dismissal of US attorneys" is still in the body of the article, where it belongs. The MoveOn.org and DailyKos.com partisans can be relied upon to dig up this "Jay Hone is a child molester" story three weeks before every election. The Albuquerque Journal story was in response to the fact that the MoveOn.org and DailyKos.com partisans dug it up:
Dailykos.com, rawstory.com and dukecityfix.com carried items on the issue, generating hundreds of blogger responses and a string of anonymous calls to the Journal. However, the police report in question was never lost: It remains a public file at the Albuquerque Police Department. The story now being trumpeted in cyberspace was reported in 1996 by then-KOAT Action 7 News reporter Larry Barker and also was reported on by the Journal in 1996 and 1998. Let's start at the beginning: Wilson's husband, Jay Hone, is a longtime youth mentor and was named in a 1993 APD report involving him and a male who was then 16 years old. Hone was not arrested or charged with any crime, and the Journal elected not to print specifics from the report.
Wilson, who is seeking re-election this year in a tough battle with Democratic Attorney General Patricia Madrid, served as head of the state Children, Youth and Families Department from 1995 to 1998 before winning her first election to the 1st Congressional District seat in 1998. During Wilson's first week as CYFD secretary, she ordered a file involving Hone's role as a foster parent to be moved from an Albuquerque warehouse to the CYFD offices at the Capitol. A family friend has said that file contained the 1993 police report.
Then-Bernalillo County District Attorney Bob Schwartz was critical of Wilson's handling of the file. "The problem is when a public employee uses their official capacity to go ahead and take care of a personal problem," Schwartz was quoted as saying in an Aug. 9, 1996 Journal story. "There is a specific statutory frame on how these things are to be handled," he said. Although still critical of her actions, Schwartz in a 1998 Journal story said Wilson did not break the law when she moved the report.
Isn't it funny how Schwartz admitted that the law was not broken, but that admission didn't find its way into the Wikipedia article? Both Jay Hone and Heather Wilson were cleared by law enforcement. This story only "resurfaced" due to the partisan actions of left-wing blogs rather than the Albuquerque Journal. Their political chicanery should not be rewarded by being permanently enshrined in Wilson's Wikipedia biography, which is supposed to be NPOV. Kzq9599 13:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
You are posting partisan political theater from DailyKos.com and I have reverted it. The story you've linked in the Albuquerque Journal was commenting on the political chicanery by DailyKos.com and clearly indicated that this was a dead story. It was about a child molesting accusation from 14 years ago. No charges were filed, no arrests were made, and county prosecutor Schwartz admitted that when Wilson moved the file, no laws were broken. The alleged "victim" is now 30 years old, and didn't want to press charges in the first place.
I am beginning to suspect that you're a paid political operative from the Patricia Madrid campaign. I've reverted your political chicanery again. It has no place in an encyclopedia, except under the heading, "Dirty Tricks by DailyKos.com." You have cited WP:V but you conveniently avoid any mention of WP:NPOV and especially WP:BLP. Kzq9599 23:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
You mention that "conflating notability with legality is wrong." I say that DailyKos.com does not decide for us what's notable and what is not. Their timing, three weeks before the 2006 election, reveals their political motive. WP:BLP forbids inclusion of this material in an encyclopedia article about living persons. Both Wilson and Hone were cleared by the appropriate law enforcement authorities. I am reporting this to the WP:BLP Noticeboard, the Administrators' Noticeboard, and an administrator. Kzq9599 23:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
I have deleted the allegation concerning a 1990 incident as a WP:BLP violation. Newyorkbrad 23:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Brad, the only possible motivation for it is indicated by the original source (DailyKos.com) and the timing (three weeks before the 2006 election). The Albuquerque Journal story was in response to the carefully timed political theater (known as astroturfing ) by DailyKos.com, and the Journal's tone clearly indicated that this was a long dead story. This political chicanery should not be rewarded by being permanently enshrined in Wilson's Wikipedia article. Kzq9599 00:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
I'm in agreement that this section is given too much attention in the article. The controversy is noteworthy but not that it has "resurfaced." It is irrelevant whether the blog is left- or right-wing. Resurfacing of controversies are a 24/7 occurrence. I disagree with the current edit war -- instead, discussion of possible rewrites should be done until a consensus can be met. To start, "Critics have long...." is a violation of WP:AWW. The length and detail of the section is a violation of WP:UNDUE. That this section is the same length as the controversy about the AGs, a much more serious controversy, I think we can agree, shows this section is out of balance. Arguably, this section depends upon sensationalism, which is a violation of WP:NPOV.
Let me add, for Kzq9599, to remember WP:Assume good faith.
So, I suggest that we use the discussion page to see if a consensus is possible before going to other avenues (say, WP:RFC) to resolve this.
Here is my suggested rewrite:
In 1996, while working as the Secretary of the State of New Mexico's Department of Children, Youth and Families, Wilson removed a confidential file from the Department's central location which included allegations involving her husband. When news reports revealed the removal, Wilson, after first denying, admitted doing so. In 1998, Wilson's Democratic opponent alleged in a campaign ad that Wilson had abused her authority by moving the file. [15]
Details are all there in the ABQ article. Skip all the other cites.
Thoughts? Therefore 00:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the section dealing with accusations against Jay Hone, no charges were ever filed. Do not add this material back per WP:BLP Thanks. RxS 00:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Schwartz is a Democrat. He was the county prosecutor at the time. He produced a lot of lightning and thunder but, in the end, he admitted that no laws were broken when the file was moved. Jay Hone is not a public figure, and all indications are that he has served honorably as a foster parent. He shouldn't have this accusation following him around the rest of his life simply because his wife is a member of Congress, and there are despicable political partisans out these who are scraping the Internet for any dirt they can dig up on her. This is America. Both Wilson and Hone are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Wikipedia should not be used for this partisan witch hunt. Kzq9599 00:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Here's my comment: I've already edited the section in question. It presents all the facts fairly, without innuendo. In particular, Wilson's motive for moving the file and the fact that it was "moved," not "removed," have been made clear. Take a look at my version and let's see what you think. I object to including this section at all since the Democratic district attorney admitted she broke no law. But evidently consensus favors including it if the child molesting allegations against Jay Hone are excluded. Kzq9599 01:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
to kzq -- should I assume in good faith you have read my suggested rewrite? I would like to hear from you about your concerns. Here is its current state:
In 1996, while working as the Secretary of the State of New Mexico's Department of Children, Youth and Families, Wilson removed a confidential file from the Department's central location which included allegations involving her husband. When news reports revealed the removal, Wilson, after first denying, admitted doing so. In 1998, Wilson's Democratic opponent alleged in a campaign ad that Wilson had abused her authority by moving the file. [20] [21] [22]
I would like to suggest that we all place Therefore's version on main page, and temporarily restrict all editing to this "talk" page. If others agree with that approach, please say so. If a good number of people accept that approach, I suggest that an admin enforce WP:3RR for any editor who subsequently edits the main page prior to some kind of consensus being reached here. A specific time frame might be helpful - how about a 24 hour block on edits? - Pete 01:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Therefore and Pete, I've read Therefore's version and I've been trying use the word "moved" rather than "removed" from the very beginning, due to the connotations concern that Shoesss has raised. I believe that an acceptable compromise has worked itself out in the article mainspace. I am still concerned about WP:UNDUE, however. WP:UNDUE is not susceptible to consensus decisions. It is policy; and even if we were all unanimous in agreeing that it should be in there, in my opinion Wikipedia policy requires its removal. Kzq9599 01:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Arbustoo, Wilson stated that her motivation for removing it was that she didn't want every employee in the department to have access to her family's personal information. Readers can understand that without citing the contents of the file. Therefore, I would accept your rewrite as a temporary measure until we can work out a permanent solution, if you add a sentence indicating that neither Wilson nor Hone was ever charged with any crime, despite extensive investigations by at least three agencies: Albuquerque PD, Bernalillo County DA's office, and DCYF. Kzq9599 01:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
We have to make it absolutely crystal clear, at all times, that no laws were broken. I have answered the central question posed in this section and I'll repeat my answer: I would accept your rewrite as a temporary measure until we can work out a permanent solution, if you add a sentence indicating that neither Wilson nor Hone was ever charged with any crime, despite extensive investigations by at least three agencies: Albuquerque PD, Bernalillo County DA's office, and DCYF. Kzq9599 01:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Isn't this implicit with "alleged"? Therefore 02:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
A lot of issues get raised in elections. That doesn't make each and every one of them notable, or otherwise appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia biography. In Bill Clinton's article, the allegations about Monica Lewinsky merit very little coverage. There is no mention of those allegations in the lede of the article. Clinton admitted that he made false statements under oath (perjury is a felony) and he was impeached for it. Use that article as a guide regarding WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Kzq9599 02:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Arbustoo, the Lewinsky scandal isn't in the lede of the Bill Clinton article, even though he was impeached for it. The Bill Clinton article is sufficiently high-profile that a lot of very experienced editors and admins have weighed in on it, and it is a fair representation of our policies here at Wikipedia. In Wilson's case, the "fired US attorneys" case is just in the preliminary investigation stage and half of the lede is devoted to it. Kzq9599 02:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
To Shoessss -- Sorry about that. The version I used in the article uses the word "move" not "removal." I think if you look above, I agreed to this change a while ago. Therefore 02:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a strawman, Arbustoo. Neither Shoessss nor I want to model this article after Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies, Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, Impeachment of Bill Clinton and Lewinsky scandal because those are not biographies. Heather Wilson is a biography. We want to model this biography after other biographies, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Clinton. Neither one of those two biographies mentions any scandal in the article lede. Kzq9599 02:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Wikipedia articles are not modeled after one another, they are crafted in accordance with policies and, generally, guidelines. Articles of various quality and political bents could be used to justify any argument; but those justifications are not acceptable. If you guys want to continue this irrelevant line of discussion, I encourage you to do so on your talk pages. - Pete 03:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
kzq -- I thought we agreed to discuss changes first here on the talk page?? Therefore 02:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, how many of you voted for Kerry? Kzq9599 02:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
In light of the input from Newyorkbrad concerning WP:BLP, how many of you are still going to accuse me of vandalizing the article? Kzq9599 02:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Let's all assume good faith, at least for a moment, and proceed under the assumption that nobody here is going to tamper with the article while we discuss it.
I would like to take a stab at breaking down the remaining issues to be discussed, and keep each in its own section, so we don't rehash things too much. Please comment on my breakdown, and make additions if I've left anything out.
Also, in recognition of Kzq9599's objection, I put a Neutrality template at the top of the section in question. - Pete 03:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
As it stands. Shoessss 03:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that it was used in a political campaign issue is sufficient. Therefore 03:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's notable, but that's not the only hurdle that has to be cleared. It's notable because some Democrats scraped the bottom of the sewer for some mud to sling. Kzq9599 03:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
(also by Kzq9599): The entire section is also a violation of WP:UNDUE because no laws were broken and the story is 14 years old. Kzq9599 03:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
I disagree. The local news media do not define notability for us. And I will remind you again that notability is only one hurdle that must be cleared. Neither Jay Hone nor Heather Wilson did anything wrong. DailyKos.com can be expected to make this issue mysteriously "resurface" three weeks before every election. On this most recent occasion, the general public had been whipped into a frenzy by the Mark Foley scandal, involving an inappropriate contact with another 16-year-old boy. Timing is everything. This belongs in the Daily Kos article under an " Astroturfing in New Mexico" section header, but it doesn't belong here because of WP:UNDUE. Kzq9599 11:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Since Bob Schwartz, Democratic district attorney, has admitted that Heather Wilson didn't break any laws, the entire section is a WP:BLP violation. Kzq9599 03:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
I'm from Australia, so I have little interest in American politics except as a detached (and sometimes amazed) observer. I am posting my response on the WP:BLPN noticeboard and I hope you will all take it to heart:
Even if there is a reliable source proving that the Patricia Madrid campaign tried to use this as a campaign issue in 2006, it should be removed from the article. Since Madrid did not win the election, she didn’t get any traction with this issue even if she used it. All editors agree that no laws were broken by either Wilson or her husband. The allegation against Wilson’s husband was never proven. He was never even arrested. In the current atmosphere created by the Mark Foley scandal, this allegation is completely poisonous. We shouldn’t even touch it unless we’re forced to do so. By using this material, we would be forced to provide links to news articles that explore details of the unproven allegations against Wilson’s husband, who is a private person.
This issue is decided by the prejudicial effect of hanging this unproven allegation around the neck of Wilson’s husband for the rest of his life. That prejudicial effect far outweighs any benefit to the article that might be gained from including a campaign issue about his wife. The section must be removed. If Wilson’s husband had been arrested and brought to trial, that would be different. If Wilson had broken the law by moving the file, that would also be different. The burden of probable cause would have been satisfied at least. But we don’t even have that much here. Obviously the authorities concluded that no crime was committed, so it should be kept out of the article. It's a close call, but in articles about living persons we must err on the side of caution. Delete the whole section. If readers are so very interested in seeking out scandal, they can use Google to find what they want to find; Wikipedia should refrain from helping them. NeilinOz1 20:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
In 1998, the Democratic candidate's campaign agreed that the ads were inappropriate and they voluntarily pulled the ads. So the existence of the ad doesn't legitimize the mention in the Wikipedia article. Neil makes a good argument. This shouldn't be included here. Kzq9599 01:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
In addition to the opinions of NeilinOz1 and Newyordbrad, Thatcher131 has made the following statement on WP:ANI. Like Newyorkbrad, Thatcher131 is an administrator:
It seems to me that 15 year old allegations, which were never proven, or even brought to trial, and were only resurfaced for purposes of politically attacking the spouse of a non-public figure, have no place on Wikipedia. [32]
The section of this article that mentions the DCFY file and its movement must be deleted. Thatcher131 mentions a previous ruling by the Arbitration Committee that involved a very permissive interepretation of WP:BLP by Arbustoo. The Arbitration Committee has ruled against Arbustoo in the past and would be likely to do so again. Wikipedia policy is not vulnerable to consensus, even if you had consensus. We have no choice. The disputed section must be removed. Kzq9599 01:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
As it stands. Shoessss 03:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
No use should be made of his name, nor of the allegations, directly or indirectly. The cites can fill in the blanks. What is relevant is the movement of the file, not the specific, sensational allegations. Therefore 03:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Posting a link to an Albuquerque Journal article detailing the allegations is a violation of WP:BLP with respect to Jay Hone. Kzq9599 03:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
(consensus box moved down to bottom of section)
Hope I'm not being too bold with the box I put in above. If I'm in error, feel free to remove it and state your objection. - Pete 04:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Please note, I'm not proposing we use that text, just trying to illustrate to Arbustoo that the name need not be included to make the point. - Pete 04:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
CONSENSUS REACHED: Husband's name, and details of allegations against him, should not be mentioned in the section about document (re)moval. |
Per Uncle G's comments below, the section title must be changed as well to comply with this agreement. Suggestions, anyone? - Pete 15:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
"""Moved""" I believe everyone knows my Opinion on that. I’m done beating that dead horse. Shoessss 03:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Barker: “Did you order, this…a record…removed?" Wilson: “No.” Barker, “So this is totally inaccurate?" Wilson: “Yes."
Should state that a finding of "No" laws were broken. Shoessss 03:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The use of the term "alleged" makes this clear. Possibly, adding in the "no laws were broken" elevates suspicion. But, I don't have strong opinions on this. Just keep it short. Therefore 03:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
That is the deciding factor. Because no law was broken, mudslinging Democratic partisans should not be rewarded for their mudslinging by permanently enshrining it here. 03:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't mean it should be included in the article. If every action of every politician that was found to be "questionable" by a politician of the opposing party was exchaustively listed in Wikipedia articles, we'd burn up the bandwidth fast. Every article about a member of Congress would be 10,000 words long; presidents would have to get 20,000 or 30,000 words. This is a manufactured issue. Opponents' political theater does not belong in a Wikipedia biography about a politician. Kzq9599 11:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
It seems pretty clear to me from reading both of the ABQ Journal articles that Hone's wish is not to be a public figure, and that the contents of the file are not a matter of public record. There is no need for the content of this article to focus upon Hone at all. As such, even the title of the section is bad. The focus should be the election campaign, which is an entirely proper subject for a biographical article about a politician, and Wilson and Maloof. I suggest the following, dealing with the subject in exactly the same way that the other elections are dealt with, and which should be placed alongside them:
Phil Maloof, Wilson's Democratic Party opponent in the United States House elections, 1998, placed advertisments during the election campaign alleging that Wilson, whilst working in 1996 as the Secretary of the State of the Children Youth & Families Department, New Mexico, had abused her authority by moving a confidential file whose contents involved her husband from a warehouse to the department's offices in the Capitol. This allegation was reported on television and the subject became a campaign issue during the election. Wilson stated that the file contained personal information about her family that she did not want department employees to have ready access to, for fear that it might be stolen or given to people who did not have the legal right to read it; and stated that she did not read the file's contents, open it, nor remove it from the department's offices, and that she did not attempt to deny access to it by department staff who were legally entitled to read it. She decried the advertisements as attacks upon her family. Former District Attorney Bob Schwartz, who had investigated the matter in August 1996, stated that Wilson had broken no laws, and that his investigation had revealed that, as Wilson stated, the file was intact and had not been tampered with. Whilst Maloof's campaign advertisment did not allege that Wilson had broken the law, it stating that Wilson had "abused her position of power", a consultant for his campaign did make such an allegation in an interview on a radio show broadcast by KOB-AM, a local radio station. The allegation was later described by a spokesman for Maloof as a mistake by that staff member. Both Wilson and Maloof agreed to abandon their negative advertising in June 1998.
- Leslie Linthicum ( 1998-07-19). "Friends Say Wilson's Husband Content on Sidelines". Albuquerque Journal.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)- Leslie Linthicum ( 1998-07-17). "Former DA Says Wilson Broke No Law Over File". Albuquerque Journal.
{{ cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)
Uncle G 14:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore: Remember that there is a point where trimming out things distorts the account of events and causes non-neutrality. And you're doing exactly that by focusing upon trying to make the wording small instead of trying to make the coverage neutral. The current text quite rightly sports a non-neutrality notice. It doesn't present Wilson's position on what she did, documented quite extensively in the sources, at all. That's something that is presented by the suggested text above (in addition to presenting enough of the issue to document Maloof's position properly, too). To be neutral, the article has to be more comprehensive than the current text has it, so that it covers all of the sides to the issue. That means longer than the current text. "Short" and "neutral" are not synonyms.
Here's a short primer in the practical application of undue weight: It is undue weight to state that Wilson moved a file and to simply state that it was alleged that this was an abuse of authority without presenting her stated reasons for actually doing so; because it gives undue weight to the single view that it was improper, when another different view (documented in the sources, notice) is that it was entirely proper, and that the correct people were consulted about moving the file. It is undue weight to state that Wilson denied and then admitted moving the file, because it gives undue weight to the single view that she actually did that at all, when another different view (again, documented in the sources) is that moving a file to a place within the department where it is inaccessible to those not legally entitled to read it, whilst keeping it accessible to those who are legally entitled to read it, is not the same as removing a file from the department.
Present the current biased account simply in the name of being brief, and you'll quite rightly suffer a constant onslaught of editors trying to correct that bias. Present a comprehensive account, on the other hand, and you'll not only have less grounds for people to raise complaints, you'll also inform readers (who may have come here after reading only a one-sided account elsewhere, whenever someone chooses to selectively re-hash these events for partisan purposes) fully and fairly about the entire issue of the negative advertising in the 1998 campaign and the conclusion of the affair, making Wikipedia go up in their estimation. ☺ Uncle G 00:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Please review my previous remarks about WP:BLP as relates to Wilson. This section is more of a liability than an asset to the article. It should be removed. NeilinOz1 20:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
This case was investigated by three different agencies and no arrests were made. Uncle G says that in order to deal with the topic fairly, we have to use nearly 300 words. It's impossible to include even 100 words without violating WP:UNDUE. There will still be abundant criticism arising from the "fired US attorneys" investigations. Kzq9599 00:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
NeilinOz1 (from the WP:BLPN noticeboard), plus Thatcher131 and Newyorkbrad (who are admins and clerks for the Arbitration Committee) have all said that the section needs to be removed. So the section needs to be removed. Kzq9599 02:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
In 1996, while working as the Secretary, Wilson moved a confidential file whose contents involved her husband from the Department's central location. When a local news station reported this, Wilson stated that she didn't "remove" the file. Her spokesman said her intent was to safeguard, not remove, its contents from illegal access. In 1998, Wilson's Democratic opponent alleged in a campaign ad that Wilson had abused her authority by moving the file, an allegation she vehemently denied.
The article lede should follow the examples of Democratic politicians who have received a lot of attention here, such as Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton. There isn't any mention of their many scandals in the ledes of their biographies, despite an impeachment and an admission of making false statements under oath. Therefore there should be no mention of a preliminary Ethics Committee investigation in the lede of this article. Kzq9599 03:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
I set up a new section entirely. I started a new section with the headline, "The article lede." Kzq9599 03:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Then we should use Frank Ballance as a guide. No considerations about article length there. House member, just like Heather Wilson. The guy is currently serving a four-year federal prison sentence for a crime he committed while serving in public office. But there's no mention of that in the lede of the article. By the way, he's a Democrat. Kzq9599 03:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
The Clinton articles have received a lot of attention from experienced editors and administrators. For that reason, I believe they are a fair representation of what Wikipedia policy requires in biographies about living politicians. Kzq9599 03:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Significant current events are frequently found in the lede. Examples: Delta_Zeta, Duke Cunningham. To quote from WP:LS:
"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." [emphasis mine]
Therefore 05:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Duke Cunningham's conviction and prison sentence are just as much "current events" as Frank Ballance's. But Cunningham is a Republican and Ballance is a Democrat. Kzq9599 11:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Hey guys. Wikipedia is not here to smear people. If negative information of any kind is causing an edit war it's best not to include it WPBio 19:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
It seems as though there isn't any consensus one way or the other. WPbio isn't "stirring up serious trouble." He's expressing his opinion about a content dispute and we're working it out. He has a right to express his opinion. Kzq9599 01:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
As a long-time editor on the Hillary Rodham Clinton article, I can say that the reason that article's lede doesn't mention any of her "scandals" is that in none of them was she ever charged with anything, much less found guilty. Wasted Time R 22:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
You hit the nail on the head. Heather Wilson hasn't been charged with anything, much less found guilty. Kzq9599 00:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Now that the three user accounts have been blocked as being tied to a partisan source with disruptive behavior I am removing the tag as no one here has a problem. If I am wrong feel free to explain what issues you have. Arbustoo 01:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The page will become unprotected soon, and I'd like to make sure that we get a change that has wide support made as soon as possible. The big problem, as agreed by (I think) everyone, is that the current section about Wilson's re/moving a file names her husband in its heading. This is not relevant to the current article, and may violate Wikipedia policy as regards her husband.
I believe that everyone would agree that the following resolution is an improvement over the current state of the page. Some, like Uncle G, may want to go further - and I'm not saying that discussion should be cut short. I just want to make sure that where there is broad consensus, the change actually gets made.
The existing paragraph should be moved such that it is chronological in the summary of Wilson's career. It should have no heading at all, or if it does, the heading should be "1998 election."
Agreed? (Subject to continued discussion about further refinements) - Pete 00:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
That is why articles separate out the controversial issues into their own section. 2) I'll summarize my reasons for moving to Career -- the details are above. I'm interested in lessening the gravity of this event because it pales in comparison to the US Attorney controversy, it fits chronologically in Career, it flows from the 1st paragraph and this is a compromise so that the paragraph not be excised. Therefore 06:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[I]t can be handy to separate the non-controversial contributions from the controversial ones. First make the non-controversial edits and then the (suspected) controversial ones.
Now that the page is unprotected, I changed the title to read "DCYF file." That was the consensus at least on that issue. Therefore 04:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Would there be an objection if I replaced the current paragraph with this slightly expanded one that incorporates many of the discussions from above?
In 1996, while working as the Secretary, Wilson moved a confidential file whose contents involved her husband from the Department's central location. When a local news station reported this, Wilson stated that she didn't "remove" the file. Her spokesman said her intent was to safeguard, not remove, its contents from illegal access. In 1998, Wilson's Democratic opponent alleged in a campaign ad that Wilson had abused her authority by moving the file, an allegation she vehemently denied.
And then we can discuss from there? Or is it best to keep the paragraph as is? Therefore 20:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
If there were additional follow up questions where the interviewer gave her a chance to distinguish between move and remove, I don't have a good citation. It would be invaluable to have a transcript of that show."Did you order this, a record removed?" Wilson responded, "No."
Therefore 00:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)In 1996, while working as the Secretary, Wilson moved a confidential file whose contents involved her husband from the Department's central location. When a local news station reported this, Wilson stated that she didn't "remove" the file. In a 1998
, in acampaign ad, Wilson's Democratic opponent charged that Wilson lied with that statement and that her act was an abuse of power,anallegations she vehemently denied. Wilson's spokesman said her intent was to safeguard, not remove, its contents from illegal access.
I deleted this paragraph:
Wilson's appeal for more oversight came nearly two months after existence of the terrorist spying program first became publicly known. Some believe that her late outcry became politically necessary due to the increased heat coming from Wilson's first formidable election opponent, Attorney General Patricia Madrid. citation needed In the days before Wilson spoke up, Madrid's campaign released both a fund-raising report showing Madrid had out-raised Wilson in the previous financial quarter and a poll putting the two candidates in a statistical tie. [1] [2]
for the following reasons:
Articles need sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are insufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article.
Find a reliable, verifiable source to support this paragraph, rewrite it using NPOV style (e.g., so-and-so said .....). Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 20:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
References
This quotation fragment:
Wilson was reportedly "forced to change committees because she offended… Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, by siding with Democrats…. 'He told me I was too independent,' said Wilson." - Albuquerque Tribune, 1/27/05
is from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee: [42]. I suggest a rewrite using the online Albuquerque Journal instead. If someone would like to type in more of the Tribune article (i.e., sans ellipsis) that would help. How about this:
According to the Albuquerque Journal in 2004, Wilson exhibited "political independence" by voting to require the Bush administration to release the cost figures for his prescription drug plan, lecturing the Republican Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfield, about the importance of the Geneva Conventions during a hearing about the Abu Ghraib scandal and by opposing a move by House Republicans to protect Tom Delay from his fundraising scandal. Although critics said these were calculated moves to moderate her image for her upcoming election, she lost her seat on the House Armed Services Committee due to the actions of Republican Joe Barton, an ally of Delay. [43] [44] [45]
Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 02:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
is also lifted verbatim from the above DCCC site. IMO, this should be removed as a Wikipedia:Copyright violations or rewritten with a better source than "2004 Wilson ad". I would rewrite it as:during her 2004 re-election campaign, Wilson ran an ad in which an individual said, "Heather Wilson is the most independent politician I have ever known…she is non-partisan." Additionally, she ran an ad in with John McCain who said, "Heather is also an independent thinker, and like me has been known to buck her own party…"
and leave it at that. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 02:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Wilson often describes herself as an "independent". [46]
but I'm open to a change. How about this for the new paragraph:1st District congresswoman willing to pay the price for her political independence
Better? ∴ Therefore | talk 22:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)According to the Congressional Quarterly, from 2001 to 2004, Wilson voted in agreement with the Republican Party at least 90 percent of the time. [1] On the other hand, Wilson often describes herself as an "independent". [47] The Albuquerque Journal in 2004, reported on several instances where Wilson acted in
contrastopposition to Republican interests by voting to require the Bush administration to release the cost figures for his prescription drug plan, lecturing the Republican Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfield, about the importance of the Geneva Conventions during a hearing about the Abu Ghraib scandal and by opposing a move by House Republicans to protect Tom Delay from his fundraising scandal. Although critics said these were calculated moves to moderate her image for her upcoming election, she lost her seat on the House Armed Services Committee due to the actions of Republican Joe Barton, an ally of Delay. [48] [49] [50]
Yes, that's good, seems to capture all sides pretty well. I'd rewrite the last sentence without the "Although," which seems out of place. Maybe just two separate sentences, without any implied link? - Pete 22:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
However, I don't hold a strong opinion on this matter and am happy with it as is. Thanks! I hope you're enjoying this weather as much as I. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)To critics, Wilson's high-profile displays of political independence seemed like a calculated attempt to soften her image in Albuquerque's moderate 1st Congressional District. It's a charge Wilson vigorously disputes. But no matter what her motivation, Wilson's recent breaks with GOP leadership on sensitive issues appear to have come at a cost. Last week, she lost her seat on the House Armed Services Committee.
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
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)
In this case, arguably, this link provides backup for said section. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 04:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)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.)?
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)
to read: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.
Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 14:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)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.
and changing the text of the article from: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.
to read, per Pete,: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."
∴ Therefore | talk 15:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)As of 2008, a spokesman for the committee refused to comment on the existence of an investigation.
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)
Note: I came here from WP:BLPN#Heather Wilson. I am concerned by edits that re-add this text. My concerns are:
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)
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)
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)
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) |
Last edited at 14:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 17:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Heather Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Heather Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
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)