![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 December 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
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 article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is not about Jones-Kelley, it is about Joe the Plumber. 75.1.249.13 ( talk) 19:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
No merge The Jones-Kelley article is about Jones-Kelley. Her, and Joe Wurzelbacher are two different people with two different career paths. Jones-Kelley holds a notable position herself. The intersection of her job and the Werzelbacher is an appropriate subject to discuss on the Jones-Kelley page - it concerns her job. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 19:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
No merge While this article needs fleshing out, much of it would not be relevant to the JtP article, which, itself, has been the subject of BLP disputes. J-K is a public official and is actually, by WP standards, more "notable" than a person who is not a public official. Collect ( talk) 19:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
No merge I think instead that much of the material about Ms. Jones-Kelley on the Joe the Plumber page should be brought over to this page. Joe's page can contain information related to him (e.g., his interaction with BHO, his actions on behalf of JSM, his company and back taxes). Helen's page can contain information related to her (e.g., her position as a public official, her decision to approve the use of state computer databases to search for information about Joe). The resulting investigations into her conduct belong on this page and have nothing to do with Joe the Plumber (aside from his being a target/victim of her actions). Hoovercleanerupper ( talk)
No merge. This page is a seperate entity worthy of its own entry. Sewnmouthsecret ( talk) 19:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
No merge. But I'll disagree with Collect on notability. JW/JtP is far more notable now - this bureaucrat is in the news mainly because her computers were used in researching JW's records. Mattnad ( talk) 20:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I've opened up a discussion on the BLP noticeboard regarding this article. If anyone would like to offer a defense of this article on the grounds that it is not a violation of WP:BLP1E, please offer it there. Gamaliel ( talk) 21:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
No merge. I don't understand how merging would be justified as things stand currently. -- VictorC ( talk) 22:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
No merge Agree that these are two different subjects, each independently notable, that just happen to intersect on one specific point, the database lookups. Each deserves a separate article, with cross links or mentions as appropriate. Further, BLP1E does not apply to either one. Endorse merge tag removal. — Becksguy ( talk) 09:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
As Jones-Kelley is a public figure, I believe that the following report by editors of The Plain Dealer is an important detail for the article concerning her involvement in the Joe Wurzelbacher Ohio government database searches. Following is the comment that was removed. "The editors of The Plain Dealer have reported that, “according to the Federal Election Commission, Jones-Kelly is a $2,500 donor to the Obama Victory Fund.”" [1] Should this be included? Any and all comments are appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 21:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I added that comment back in about the same time you posted this discussion item, but also invited further discussion. The deleted material was published in a major Ohio newspaper, and notes a matter of public record. There currently is more information, about HJK's involvement in the public records search, on the Joe the Plumber page than on HJK's page. I think the material that I added back is relevant to the section it is included in, and should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoovercleanerupper ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
A single editor keeps adding Jones-Kelly's donation to the Obama campaign into the section about the investigation into Joe the Plumber record search. The investigation has not made any determination of political bias in the records searches. To include this information goes beyond what is known.
The sources out there do not state there's a connection between Jones-Kelly's donations and the investigation. Instead, they skirt this by juxtaposing two separate sets of facts, thereby creating guilt by association. At best, it's yellow journalism and Wikipedia has a higher standard. Mattnad ( talk) 00:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
This section is a mishmash of various news quotes right now. Many sentences are written in the imperative tense, when later in the article the activity has been concluded or facts have evolved. What we need to do (and the version in the JtP is better), is summarize the issues, key responses from people, and the outcomes. All of this should be in past tense, except when needed.
For instance, we now have "Currently, the attorney general's office of Ohio is investigating who used the government computers.[13] Thomas Charles, the inspector general of Ohio, is currently part of the investigation." This is unneeded, given we later write, "On November 20, 2008, Ohio's inspector general Thomas Charles reported that the reasonings that Helen Jones-Kelley provided for the checks on Wurzelbacher "were not credible and they included contradictions, ambiguity, and inconsistencies."
A lot can be trimmed. Do we really need the minutia of every reaction and development between the start and end of the investigation, or can we now look back on this, pick the salient points, and make this more concise.
I would have done these edits myself, but I'm taking the time to explain my plan because another editor made a fuss that major changes, even to a section so poorly written, requires "consensus". So I'm putting this up for discussion. Mattnad ( talk) 21:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I'd like to remove this sentence "Jones-Kelley, a Democratic appointee who contributed $5,000 to Obama campaign funds, said there were no political motives behind the checks run the day after the Oct. 15 presidential debate, in which McCain repeatedly referred to 'Joe the Plumber." The investigation concluded there was no evidence of political motivation and this sentence basically repeats parts of Jones-Kelly's defense already in the article. Without evidence of political motivation for the searches, this strikes me as unnecessary (unless there's a desire to maintain that accusation of political motivation). Mattnad ( talk) 09:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Um -- the newspaper quote is the newspaper quote. Telling me not to use it because it does not fit your idea of what is "germane" is absurd. Would you prefer a new section on "Investigation results as reported in newspapers" or just leave the quote under emails where it is now residing? Collect ( talk) 02:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
ADD every positive newspaper editorial you can find, that should make the section more "balanced" I suppose. You have deleted everything else which shows JK in an "unfavorable light" even saying she only "breached protocol" LOL! Collect ( talk) 14:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
No personal reasons at all. I was involved in no way with any campaign at all. I noted that the entire article had been purged of anything negative at all, so I sought EVERY newspaper editorial, intending to have an equal number supporting or citicizing her. I found absolutely none which supported her. EACH source uis correctly cited and referenced as opinion. As to the article being too long -- it is currently one of the shorter ones on any political figure, so "conciseness" is not an issue either. And I am amazed that you find newspaper opinions "biased" at all. You are certainly more than free, nay I am eager that you add balancing opinions! Collect ( talk) 11:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
this article is to biased in favor of Kelley. This woman broke the law. That needs to be in the article somewhere. -- 69.37.38.207 ( talk) 11:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
this article gives undue weight to Helen Jones-Kelly's involvement in leaking information about Joe the Plumber. if there is no discussion as to how to remedy this, i will, in one week, delete all but the first paragraph of the ODJFS database search section and the entire Use of ODJFS e-mail section Misterdiscreet ( talk) 16:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
(out) A very large amount of material is devoted to her job and background. Her actions are not something WP has control over -- a large part of (say, in order to invoke Godwin) the (youknowwho) article deals with killing people. I am sure he did a lot of other stuff, but it is not up to us to invent more than we can find. All we are called on to do is use what material is available. Her job background, family and education is included in the article, as are facts baout her department etc. Ergo - UNDUE is not applicable here. Collect ( talk) 18:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
And again per JtP comments -- this is a grossly inaccurate bowdlerization of the facts. Charles found it to be much more than a "breach of protocol" and the current lawsuits make this exceptionally germane to the BLP on HJ-K. Elision of germane facts does not serve this article. Collect ( talk) 19:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
This information is more germane to the article on the controversy. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 22:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
(out)The RS cites are meaningless when faced with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Collect ( talk) 21:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Helen Jones-Kelley/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.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
Some passing comments. Some more under "Background" or "Family history" would be useful; such as place and DoB, more info on previous jobs, stuff like that. A mention that she is a member of the Governor's Board would be useful.
|
Last edited at 21:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 17:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Helen Jones-Kelley. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.northcentralohio.com/newsboard/single.asp?Story=31214When 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) 06:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Helen Jones-Kelley. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/12/21/jobfamily.html?sid=101{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nbc4i.com/midwest/cmh/politics.apx.-content-articles-CMH-2008-11-20-0017.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://blog.dispatch.com/dailybriefing/2008/12/franklin_county_director_to_he_1.shtml{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/03/05/ajoe.html?sid=101When 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) 13:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 December 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
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 article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is not about Jones-Kelley, it is about Joe the Plumber. 75.1.249.13 ( talk) 19:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
No merge The Jones-Kelley article is about Jones-Kelley. Her, and Joe Wurzelbacher are two different people with two different career paths. Jones-Kelley holds a notable position herself. The intersection of her job and the Werzelbacher is an appropriate subject to discuss on the Jones-Kelley page - it concerns her job. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 19:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
No merge While this article needs fleshing out, much of it would not be relevant to the JtP article, which, itself, has been the subject of BLP disputes. J-K is a public official and is actually, by WP standards, more "notable" than a person who is not a public official. Collect ( talk) 19:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
No merge I think instead that much of the material about Ms. Jones-Kelley on the Joe the Plumber page should be brought over to this page. Joe's page can contain information related to him (e.g., his interaction with BHO, his actions on behalf of JSM, his company and back taxes). Helen's page can contain information related to her (e.g., her position as a public official, her decision to approve the use of state computer databases to search for information about Joe). The resulting investigations into her conduct belong on this page and have nothing to do with Joe the Plumber (aside from his being a target/victim of her actions). Hoovercleanerupper ( talk)
No merge. This page is a seperate entity worthy of its own entry. Sewnmouthsecret ( talk) 19:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
No merge. But I'll disagree with Collect on notability. JW/JtP is far more notable now - this bureaucrat is in the news mainly because her computers were used in researching JW's records. Mattnad ( talk) 20:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I've opened up a discussion on the BLP noticeboard regarding this article. If anyone would like to offer a defense of this article on the grounds that it is not a violation of WP:BLP1E, please offer it there. Gamaliel ( talk) 21:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
No merge. I don't understand how merging would be justified as things stand currently. -- VictorC ( talk) 22:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
No merge Agree that these are two different subjects, each independently notable, that just happen to intersect on one specific point, the database lookups. Each deserves a separate article, with cross links or mentions as appropriate. Further, BLP1E does not apply to either one. Endorse merge tag removal. — Becksguy ( talk) 09:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
As Jones-Kelley is a public figure, I believe that the following report by editors of The Plain Dealer is an important detail for the article concerning her involvement in the Joe Wurzelbacher Ohio government database searches. Following is the comment that was removed. "The editors of The Plain Dealer have reported that, “according to the Federal Election Commission, Jones-Kelly is a $2,500 donor to the Obama Victory Fund.”" [1] Should this be included? Any and all comments are appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 21:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I added that comment back in about the same time you posted this discussion item, but also invited further discussion. The deleted material was published in a major Ohio newspaper, and notes a matter of public record. There currently is more information, about HJK's involvement in the public records search, on the Joe the Plumber page than on HJK's page. I think the material that I added back is relevant to the section it is included in, and should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoovercleanerupper ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
A single editor keeps adding Jones-Kelly's donation to the Obama campaign into the section about the investigation into Joe the Plumber record search. The investigation has not made any determination of political bias in the records searches. To include this information goes beyond what is known.
The sources out there do not state there's a connection between Jones-Kelly's donations and the investigation. Instead, they skirt this by juxtaposing two separate sets of facts, thereby creating guilt by association. At best, it's yellow journalism and Wikipedia has a higher standard. Mattnad ( talk) 00:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
This section is a mishmash of various news quotes right now. Many sentences are written in the imperative tense, when later in the article the activity has been concluded or facts have evolved. What we need to do (and the version in the JtP is better), is summarize the issues, key responses from people, and the outcomes. All of this should be in past tense, except when needed.
For instance, we now have "Currently, the attorney general's office of Ohio is investigating who used the government computers.[13] Thomas Charles, the inspector general of Ohio, is currently part of the investigation." This is unneeded, given we later write, "On November 20, 2008, Ohio's inspector general Thomas Charles reported that the reasonings that Helen Jones-Kelley provided for the checks on Wurzelbacher "were not credible and they included contradictions, ambiguity, and inconsistencies."
A lot can be trimmed. Do we really need the minutia of every reaction and development between the start and end of the investigation, or can we now look back on this, pick the salient points, and make this more concise.
I would have done these edits myself, but I'm taking the time to explain my plan because another editor made a fuss that major changes, even to a section so poorly written, requires "consensus". So I'm putting this up for discussion. Mattnad ( talk) 21:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I'd like to remove this sentence "Jones-Kelley, a Democratic appointee who contributed $5,000 to Obama campaign funds, said there were no political motives behind the checks run the day after the Oct. 15 presidential debate, in which McCain repeatedly referred to 'Joe the Plumber." The investigation concluded there was no evidence of political motivation and this sentence basically repeats parts of Jones-Kelly's defense already in the article. Without evidence of political motivation for the searches, this strikes me as unnecessary (unless there's a desire to maintain that accusation of political motivation). Mattnad ( talk) 09:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Um -- the newspaper quote is the newspaper quote. Telling me not to use it because it does not fit your idea of what is "germane" is absurd. Would you prefer a new section on "Investigation results as reported in newspapers" or just leave the quote under emails where it is now residing? Collect ( talk) 02:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
ADD every positive newspaper editorial you can find, that should make the section more "balanced" I suppose. You have deleted everything else which shows JK in an "unfavorable light" even saying she only "breached protocol" LOL! Collect ( talk) 14:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
No personal reasons at all. I was involved in no way with any campaign at all. I noted that the entire article had been purged of anything negative at all, so I sought EVERY newspaper editorial, intending to have an equal number supporting or citicizing her. I found absolutely none which supported her. EACH source uis correctly cited and referenced as opinion. As to the article being too long -- it is currently one of the shorter ones on any political figure, so "conciseness" is not an issue either. And I am amazed that you find newspaper opinions "biased" at all. You are certainly more than free, nay I am eager that you add balancing opinions! Collect ( talk) 11:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
this article is to biased in favor of Kelley. This woman broke the law. That needs to be in the article somewhere. -- 69.37.38.207 ( talk) 11:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
this article gives undue weight to Helen Jones-Kelly's involvement in leaking information about Joe the Plumber. if there is no discussion as to how to remedy this, i will, in one week, delete all but the first paragraph of the ODJFS database search section and the entire Use of ODJFS e-mail section Misterdiscreet ( talk) 16:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
(out) A very large amount of material is devoted to her job and background. Her actions are not something WP has control over -- a large part of (say, in order to invoke Godwin) the (youknowwho) article deals with killing people. I am sure he did a lot of other stuff, but it is not up to us to invent more than we can find. All we are called on to do is use what material is available. Her job background, family and education is included in the article, as are facts baout her department etc. Ergo - UNDUE is not applicable here. Collect ( talk) 18:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
And again per JtP comments -- this is a grossly inaccurate bowdlerization of the facts. Charles found it to be much more than a "breach of protocol" and the current lawsuits make this exceptionally germane to the BLP on HJ-K. Elision of germane facts does not serve this article. Collect ( talk) 19:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
This information is more germane to the article on the controversy. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 22:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
(out)The RS cites are meaningless when faced with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Collect ( talk) 21:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Helen Jones-Kelley/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.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
Some passing comments. Some more under "Background" or "Family history" would be useful; such as place and DoB, more info on previous jobs, stuff like that. A mention that she is a member of the Governor's Board would be useful.
|
Last edited at 21:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 17:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Helen Jones-Kelley. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.northcentralohio.com/newsboard/single.asp?Story=31214When 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) 06:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Helen Jones-Kelley. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/12/21/jobfamily.html?sid=101{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nbc4i.com/midwest/cmh/politics.apx.-content-articles-CMH-2008-11-20-0017.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://blog.dispatch.com/dailybriefing/2008/12/franklin_county_director_to_he_1.shtml{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/03/05/ajoe.html?sid=101When 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) 13:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)