This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vicki Iseman 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 was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WikiProject Biography Assessment Drives
Want to help write or improve biographies? Check out WikiProject Biography Tips for writing better articles. — Yamara ✉ 13:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the rapid deletion of this page. I was just writing on this talk page when that happened. Speedy deletion was too fast. This article might have a regular article for deletion candidate. I fail to see how the New York Times is an improper or poor source. Failureofafriend ( talk) 02:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
As of this timestamp, subject is notable by any measure. 266 news hits on Google (all in the last five hours). This is going to be like Harriet Myers (stub at sunrise and well-cited B-class by sundown). Let's do it carefully, ladies and gentlemen. BusterD ( talk) 06:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This entry should be relabelled as McCain Iseman connection or something other than a biography of Vicki Iseman. It currently deals almost exclusively with the recent article from the NYT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.127.7.58 ( talk) 13:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Partially agreed. The article should be restricted to items directly associated to Ms. Iseman, not McCain campaign reaction to these allegations. Rockgolf ( talk) 21:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
While the Alcalde and Fay biography claims that Iseman has a "B.A." in Elementary Education, a quick check of the Indiana University of Pennsylvania's Professional Studies in Education Department's website shows that they call the degree a "B.S.Ed.", which I imagine is to be read as "Bachelor of Science in Education" (a classic example of a tagged degree). I assume that Iseman told Alcalde and Faye that she had "a bachelor's degree in Elementary Education", and they mistakenly assumed it was a B.A., which explains why it says that on her firm profile.
That's why I initially said that she received her B.S.Ed. from IUP. I note that some, no-doubt well-meaning soul switched this to "B.Sc." and then another well-meaning soul switched it to "B.A." I appreciate the attention, but I continue to maintain that I was right the first time, so I'm going to revert it from "B.A." to "B.S.Ed." If someone has a better explanation, though, I'd be willing to reconsider.
Adam_sk ( talk) 07:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I have rephrased the lead because it gave the false impression, by use of quote marks, that the New York Times used the words "improper relationship". I've searched all four pages of the cited article and have found no trace of those words. -- TS 15:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the controversies section because of undue weight. This threatens to outweigh the entire article, which is a biography. A mention of the McCain fuss is appropriate; six kilobytes of in-depth analysis tacked onto a five-kilobyte article is not. -- TS 15:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone "in charge" needs to decide whether this is a biography or a current event as the article starts as a biography of someone that without the "current event" element would be non-notable.
I think the article is mostly a rehash of items already on the John McCain page and really either needs to be deleted/merged with the appropriate section of McCain's page or with a page decribing the current event itself. Thanks Jasynnash2 ( talk) 16:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Good luck keeping that "coatrack template" on it; people kept deleting the "notable template" I put on it. Too much bias in favor of this article remaining around.-- Bedford 17:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Terraxos tagged the article with a coatrack template saying, it was the "very definition" of a coatrack. I disagree. One element of a coatrack article is bias. I don't see the bias in the article which uses sources that, unlike WP:COATRACK's examples, are not "crackpot" references. It is reliably sourced and does provide denials. Nor is this a conspiracy theory, fringe topic, fact picking, etc.
On the other hand, I do believe the article should be renamed as the salient subject here is the controversy and not the bio. See above discussions. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 18:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Within the context of the John McCain election campaign, there is a controversy over his close involvement with a lobbyist. There is no suggestion of her having behaved improperly in any way. My proposed way of dealing with this is to:
Including a duplicate section here is, as outlined in Wikipedia:Coatrack, likely to bias the article about a blameless individual by devoting over half of the biography to a controversy in which she has herself become embroiled. The controversy pertains to the alleged conduct of a third party and can be quite adequately handled in the related article.
It is quite probable, of course, that she wouldn't have a biography in Wikipedia if it weren't for the controversy, but I think the matter of whether the article should be deleted and replaced with a straight redirect can be considered separately from the question of whether in its current form it's a coatrack that can be turned into a proper biography by the methods I've suggested or by other methods. -- TS 20:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I propose this article be merged with John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. This person is not notable outside of gossip and innuendos about that campaign. Having an article here is not only a coatrack, but contradicts the spirit of WP:BLP. She is notable for one (alleged - and speculated and denied) event, so merge per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT NEWS. Really, this is a bio based on tittle tattle, we don't do that.-- Docg 20:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I oppose the merge per Therefore and FailureOfAFriend. I came to Wikipedia today looking for an article about Vicki Iseman and I am glad I did not get redirected to a subsection of the John McCain article. Also, I disagree with the argument that Wikipedia articles should meet traditional/paper encyclopedia notoriety standards. If you can get multiple substantive hits for a topic in google, it probably deserves a page in Wikipedia. -- Unflappable ( talk) 23:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Here they qualify "one event" as "relatively unimportant" or a nominee for election (presumably a relatively unimportant one). That isn't the case here. Further,When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person.
There isn't an article on the event itself. If this event becomes enlarged, then an event article is required. The sources have written extensively about Iseman in the context of her activities with McCain. I don't think this is the appropriate forum for debating whether The New York Times is a reliable source -- it is. Same for the Washington Post. This articles does not state that Iseman did such and such -- *that* would be inappropriate. Instead it states that reliable sources reported that Iseman did such and such. That is what we as editors are required to do. This article passes the three tests: Verifiable, attributed reliable sources and written in a neutral tone of voice. We can argue the semantics of a "single event" or "relative importance" but this is a notable person with extensive coverage. You could argue "single event" for Paula Jones or Brian McNamee and many other articles but because these weren't "relatively unimportant", WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. Nor here. ∴ Therefore | talk 04:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reliable sources may at times be extensive and may expand upon the person's background, but information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself,
I'd oppose a merge with the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article, on the grounds everything revealed in the last 24 hours (and mentioned in this pagespace) happened eight years ago, and is in no way a part of this presidential campaign, from a strictly enyclopedic view. Subject is a public figure, as someone who is a registered lobbyist. If subject was a man, and no hanky-panky had been insinuated (as the NYT seems to have done in this case), subject would be notable on the merits, as a registered lobbyist with unexplained close connections to a presidential nominee. That's my position. BusterD ( talk) 04:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree that it should be merged. Enigma msg! 03:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge There are tens of thousands of lobbyists who work in Washington DC, and Iseman is no different from any other one of them except for the fact that NYT chose to cook up a story about her and McCain. Now that time has established that the story was a lie, it is time to merge. Her notability is entirely dependent on this story and should therefore be merged. LuxNevada ( talk) 02:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
A couple observations:
1) I think the fact that Vicki Iseman has been linked to a scandal involving a presidential nominee (as opposed to someone just running in the primaries) means that we're probably going to be hearing a lot more about her in the months to come. 2) I don't think that Wikipedia's Notability standards are really that high - how often does the Thomas S. Kleppe page get visited, yet he's still clearly notable enough to warrant a page. A lot more people will be searching for information on Iseman than on Kleppe in the months (and I daresay, years) to come. 3) I think that there is enough material about Iseman's background before the scandal (four paragraphs - way more than Kleppe's) to warrant keeping her biography page even if a new page on the Controversy is created. Let's recall, that the amount of information we know about Iseman right now is very thin and based on a couple Google searches - more information is sure to be reported in the next couple days. 4) Iseman is still a practicing lobbyist and will likely continue being of interest even after this scandal passes (if it passes). I can see a story ten years from now referencing her.
Therefore, I would recommend creating a "McCain-Iseman Scandal" page, but keeping the Vicki Iseman biography page, though paring down the amount of stuff about the controversy on the biography. It would mean having double articles, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, and this is the sort of thing that will generate enough interest to make it worthwhile.
Adam_sk ( talk) 02:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I have a photo of Vicki Iseman that I took with my own cheap camera in 2002. I posted it into Wikimedia, but I don't know how to add it to the main article. Whomever knows how to do that is free to post the pic into the article. I think you can sesarch for it in Wikimedia. It's an analog image scanned in, so it's not fabulous quality, but I figured I'd make it available, since I didn't see a piture on Vicki's page. Priorart ( talk) 17:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Priorart, 2/22/08
It is Vicki_Iseman_in_2002.jpg Priorart ( talk) 18:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Priorart
I agree, but I figured it might be better than nothing. I could try to scan it in at a higher DPI if it helps. Priorart ( talk) 19:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Priorart
What suggestions do you have for the name of the new pagespace? ∴ Therefore | talk 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
In the "lobbying activities" section, Ms. Iseman was credited with "grassroots organizing" on behalf of her clients. I have changed this to "grassroots organizing (arguably astroturfing)" - this edit may be somewhat controversial, but I would say that any "grassroots organizing" by a prominent professional lobbyist is, prima facie, an example of astroturfing. If anyone disagrees with that assertion, I would like to discuss it here. Mr. IP ( talk) 22:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Which creates neutrally written articles. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense described above. Therefore, where we want to discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion.
User:72.209.11.186 has twice deleted the "See also" link to John McCain lobbyist controversy with the argument WP:GTL. Here is what WP:SEEALSO actually says:
The "See also" section provides a list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense.
This isn't a prohibition against repeating links that would provide license to an editor to automatically delete the link but instead defers to their editorial judgment. In this case, the "See also" is clearly relevant. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 18:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
<outdent> I remove the link to the NY Times. This stuff really isn't necessary for this size bio. Thank you. -- 70.109.223.188 ( talk) 14:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The current lead for this article needs work. The
lead is supposed to serve a dual role. One, as an introduction to the article below and two, as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The current lead has one sentence that says she was born and serves as a lobbyist. Two sentences follow that talk about the John McCain controversy. The article has two major sections with one having two subsections. Not one word of the article except for a "See Also" link talks about the McCain Controversy.
The current lead does not summarize the article, the first sentence summarizes the article and the next two sentences summarize why she is notable, something that isn't even discussed in the article itself.
I know I will get reverted if I remove the second and third sentences of the lead or if I add material about the controversy into the article, so how do we fix this, or do we even fix it?
Jons63 (
talk)
02:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced the extremely longwinded reference in the lead with the single sentence:
All the rest was padding which, placed in the lead, was adding undue weight to that controversy. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Some time has passed since this story broke. Slightly less time has passed since any wikipedia editors took a real interest in this article, so I've decided to be bold and delete all the extraneous bio details in accordance to wiki policy WP:NPF.
I've also proposed that this article be merged into the article about the McCain-Iseman-NYT controversy, but discussion for that should be done over at the thread I've created on that article's talk page. DiggyG ( talk) 02:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of this discussion was no consensus for move, due to lack of generated interest in the discussion. BusterD ( talk) 10:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I represent the New York Times Company and I'd like to make you aware of the company's position on this issue. The Times has issued the following statement:
We fully stand behind the article. We continue to believe it to be true and accurate, and that we will prevail. As we said at the time, it was an important piece that raised questions about a presidential contender and the perception that he had been engaged in conflicts of interest.
We plan to defend the suit vigorously and expect to prevail. We have insurance, so there is no material financial exposure; we view defending libel suits as an ordinary cost of doing business.javascript:insertTags(' EBohan ( talk) 14:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)',,)
Numerous citations demonstrate the subject being covered in multiple reliable sources, some of which predate the NY Times story which prompted attention into her lengthy public lobbying career. Unless I see some significant discussion here, I'm removing the January tag in 24 hours. Notability has been under discussion since the original creation of the page, and the last measurement of consensus was concluded with a statement that the existence of this page tends to balance negative connotation which might be drawn from coverage of the controversy on its own page (a page originally created by extraction from this pagespace). Citation has been added after that DRV process, and notability doesn't expire. Unless somebody wants to relist this for AfD, I assert notability. (For my part, I've been a pagewatcher since the first minutes of page creation, and have participated on both sides in previous deletion discussions.) BusterD ( talk) 13:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
In the last few days, an ip editor ( User:199.47.100.133) has been making changes to the content pf this page, specifically removing mention of her previous lobbying employer from the lede, also removing the mention of the lobbying controversy in the lede. The new editor seems to have reason to believe the subject has created her own lobbying firm, but has failed to show any reliable source which verifies this. Further, each time the blankings have occurred, the underlying code has been disturbed leaving a broken page. I have zero qualms with page improvement, but have tried to start a dialogue on the ip's talk page and again here. Let's discuss how to improve the page without wholesale removal of sources and by following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, specifically those related to WP:Biographies of living persons. BusterD ( talk) 11:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I saw and reverted an insertion this morning and then saw another reverted by another admin I'd notified of my first revert. I went to this trouble because it's likely reliable secondary sources will soon emerge covering the twitter and substack argument between Ms. McCain and Mr. Schmidt. Let's keep our eyes on the ball folks. We're an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Let's collect the sources and follow them. BusterD ( talk) 13:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vicki Iseman 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 was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WikiProject Biography Assessment Drives
Want to help write or improve biographies? Check out WikiProject Biography Tips for writing better articles. — Yamara ✉ 13:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the rapid deletion of this page. I was just writing on this talk page when that happened. Speedy deletion was too fast. This article might have a regular article for deletion candidate. I fail to see how the New York Times is an improper or poor source. Failureofafriend ( talk) 02:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
As of this timestamp, subject is notable by any measure. 266 news hits on Google (all in the last five hours). This is going to be like Harriet Myers (stub at sunrise and well-cited B-class by sundown). Let's do it carefully, ladies and gentlemen. BusterD ( talk) 06:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This entry should be relabelled as McCain Iseman connection or something other than a biography of Vicki Iseman. It currently deals almost exclusively with the recent article from the NYT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.127.7.58 ( talk) 13:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Partially agreed. The article should be restricted to items directly associated to Ms. Iseman, not McCain campaign reaction to these allegations. Rockgolf ( talk) 21:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
While the Alcalde and Fay biography claims that Iseman has a "B.A." in Elementary Education, a quick check of the Indiana University of Pennsylvania's Professional Studies in Education Department's website shows that they call the degree a "B.S.Ed.", which I imagine is to be read as "Bachelor of Science in Education" (a classic example of a tagged degree). I assume that Iseman told Alcalde and Faye that she had "a bachelor's degree in Elementary Education", and they mistakenly assumed it was a B.A., which explains why it says that on her firm profile.
That's why I initially said that she received her B.S.Ed. from IUP. I note that some, no-doubt well-meaning soul switched this to "B.Sc." and then another well-meaning soul switched it to "B.A." I appreciate the attention, but I continue to maintain that I was right the first time, so I'm going to revert it from "B.A." to "B.S.Ed." If someone has a better explanation, though, I'd be willing to reconsider.
Adam_sk ( talk) 07:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I have rephrased the lead because it gave the false impression, by use of quote marks, that the New York Times used the words "improper relationship". I've searched all four pages of the cited article and have found no trace of those words. -- TS 15:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the controversies section because of undue weight. This threatens to outweigh the entire article, which is a biography. A mention of the McCain fuss is appropriate; six kilobytes of in-depth analysis tacked onto a five-kilobyte article is not. -- TS 15:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone "in charge" needs to decide whether this is a biography or a current event as the article starts as a biography of someone that without the "current event" element would be non-notable.
I think the article is mostly a rehash of items already on the John McCain page and really either needs to be deleted/merged with the appropriate section of McCain's page or with a page decribing the current event itself. Thanks Jasynnash2 ( talk) 16:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Good luck keeping that "coatrack template" on it; people kept deleting the "notable template" I put on it. Too much bias in favor of this article remaining around.-- Bedford 17:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Terraxos tagged the article with a coatrack template saying, it was the "very definition" of a coatrack. I disagree. One element of a coatrack article is bias. I don't see the bias in the article which uses sources that, unlike WP:COATRACK's examples, are not "crackpot" references. It is reliably sourced and does provide denials. Nor is this a conspiracy theory, fringe topic, fact picking, etc.
On the other hand, I do believe the article should be renamed as the salient subject here is the controversy and not the bio. See above discussions. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 18:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Within the context of the John McCain election campaign, there is a controversy over his close involvement with a lobbyist. There is no suggestion of her having behaved improperly in any way. My proposed way of dealing with this is to:
Including a duplicate section here is, as outlined in Wikipedia:Coatrack, likely to bias the article about a blameless individual by devoting over half of the biography to a controversy in which she has herself become embroiled. The controversy pertains to the alleged conduct of a third party and can be quite adequately handled in the related article.
It is quite probable, of course, that she wouldn't have a biography in Wikipedia if it weren't for the controversy, but I think the matter of whether the article should be deleted and replaced with a straight redirect can be considered separately from the question of whether in its current form it's a coatrack that can be turned into a proper biography by the methods I've suggested or by other methods. -- TS 20:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I propose this article be merged with John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. This person is not notable outside of gossip and innuendos about that campaign. Having an article here is not only a coatrack, but contradicts the spirit of WP:BLP. She is notable for one (alleged - and speculated and denied) event, so merge per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT NEWS. Really, this is a bio based on tittle tattle, we don't do that.-- Docg 20:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I oppose the merge per Therefore and FailureOfAFriend. I came to Wikipedia today looking for an article about Vicki Iseman and I am glad I did not get redirected to a subsection of the John McCain article. Also, I disagree with the argument that Wikipedia articles should meet traditional/paper encyclopedia notoriety standards. If you can get multiple substantive hits for a topic in google, it probably deserves a page in Wikipedia. -- Unflappable ( talk) 23:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Here they qualify "one event" as "relatively unimportant" or a nominee for election (presumably a relatively unimportant one). That isn't the case here. Further,When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person.
There isn't an article on the event itself. If this event becomes enlarged, then an event article is required. The sources have written extensively about Iseman in the context of her activities with McCain. I don't think this is the appropriate forum for debating whether The New York Times is a reliable source -- it is. Same for the Washington Post. This articles does not state that Iseman did such and such -- *that* would be inappropriate. Instead it states that reliable sources reported that Iseman did such and such. That is what we as editors are required to do. This article passes the three tests: Verifiable, attributed reliable sources and written in a neutral tone of voice. We can argue the semantics of a "single event" or "relative importance" but this is a notable person with extensive coverage. You could argue "single event" for Paula Jones or Brian McNamee and many other articles but because these weren't "relatively unimportant", WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. Nor here. ∴ Therefore | talk 04:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reliable sources may at times be extensive and may expand upon the person's background, but information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself,
I'd oppose a merge with the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article, on the grounds everything revealed in the last 24 hours (and mentioned in this pagespace) happened eight years ago, and is in no way a part of this presidential campaign, from a strictly enyclopedic view. Subject is a public figure, as someone who is a registered lobbyist. If subject was a man, and no hanky-panky had been insinuated (as the NYT seems to have done in this case), subject would be notable on the merits, as a registered lobbyist with unexplained close connections to a presidential nominee. That's my position. BusterD ( talk) 04:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree that it should be merged. Enigma msg! 03:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge There are tens of thousands of lobbyists who work in Washington DC, and Iseman is no different from any other one of them except for the fact that NYT chose to cook up a story about her and McCain. Now that time has established that the story was a lie, it is time to merge. Her notability is entirely dependent on this story and should therefore be merged. LuxNevada ( talk) 02:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
A couple observations:
1) I think the fact that Vicki Iseman has been linked to a scandal involving a presidential nominee (as opposed to someone just running in the primaries) means that we're probably going to be hearing a lot more about her in the months to come. 2) I don't think that Wikipedia's Notability standards are really that high - how often does the Thomas S. Kleppe page get visited, yet he's still clearly notable enough to warrant a page. A lot more people will be searching for information on Iseman than on Kleppe in the months (and I daresay, years) to come. 3) I think that there is enough material about Iseman's background before the scandal (four paragraphs - way more than Kleppe's) to warrant keeping her biography page even if a new page on the Controversy is created. Let's recall, that the amount of information we know about Iseman right now is very thin and based on a couple Google searches - more information is sure to be reported in the next couple days. 4) Iseman is still a practicing lobbyist and will likely continue being of interest even after this scandal passes (if it passes). I can see a story ten years from now referencing her.
Therefore, I would recommend creating a "McCain-Iseman Scandal" page, but keeping the Vicki Iseman biography page, though paring down the amount of stuff about the controversy on the biography. It would mean having double articles, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, and this is the sort of thing that will generate enough interest to make it worthwhile.
Adam_sk ( talk) 02:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I have a photo of Vicki Iseman that I took with my own cheap camera in 2002. I posted it into Wikimedia, but I don't know how to add it to the main article. Whomever knows how to do that is free to post the pic into the article. I think you can sesarch for it in Wikimedia. It's an analog image scanned in, so it's not fabulous quality, but I figured I'd make it available, since I didn't see a piture on Vicki's page. Priorart ( talk) 17:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Priorart, 2/22/08
It is Vicki_Iseman_in_2002.jpg Priorart ( talk) 18:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Priorart
I agree, but I figured it might be better than nothing. I could try to scan it in at a higher DPI if it helps. Priorart ( talk) 19:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Priorart
What suggestions do you have for the name of the new pagespace? ∴ Therefore | talk 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
In the "lobbying activities" section, Ms. Iseman was credited with "grassroots organizing" on behalf of her clients. I have changed this to "grassroots organizing (arguably astroturfing)" - this edit may be somewhat controversial, but I would say that any "grassroots organizing" by a prominent professional lobbyist is, prima facie, an example of astroturfing. If anyone disagrees with that assertion, I would like to discuss it here. Mr. IP ( talk) 22:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Which creates neutrally written articles. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense described above. Therefore, where we want to discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion.
User:72.209.11.186 has twice deleted the "See also" link to John McCain lobbyist controversy with the argument WP:GTL. Here is what WP:SEEALSO actually says:
The "See also" section provides a list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense.
This isn't a prohibition against repeating links that would provide license to an editor to automatically delete the link but instead defers to their editorial judgment. In this case, the "See also" is clearly relevant. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 18:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
<outdent> I remove the link to the NY Times. This stuff really isn't necessary for this size bio. Thank you. -- 70.109.223.188 ( talk) 14:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The current lead for this article needs work. The
lead is supposed to serve a dual role. One, as an introduction to the article below and two, as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The current lead has one sentence that says she was born and serves as a lobbyist. Two sentences follow that talk about the John McCain controversy. The article has two major sections with one having two subsections. Not one word of the article except for a "See Also" link talks about the McCain Controversy.
The current lead does not summarize the article, the first sentence summarizes the article and the next two sentences summarize why she is notable, something that isn't even discussed in the article itself.
I know I will get reverted if I remove the second and third sentences of the lead or if I add material about the controversy into the article, so how do we fix this, or do we even fix it?
Jons63 (
talk)
02:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced the extremely longwinded reference in the lead with the single sentence:
All the rest was padding which, placed in the lead, was adding undue weight to that controversy. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Some time has passed since this story broke. Slightly less time has passed since any wikipedia editors took a real interest in this article, so I've decided to be bold and delete all the extraneous bio details in accordance to wiki policy WP:NPF.
I've also proposed that this article be merged into the article about the McCain-Iseman-NYT controversy, but discussion for that should be done over at the thread I've created on that article's talk page. DiggyG ( talk) 02:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of this discussion was no consensus for move, due to lack of generated interest in the discussion. BusterD ( talk) 10:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I represent the New York Times Company and I'd like to make you aware of the company's position on this issue. The Times has issued the following statement:
We fully stand behind the article. We continue to believe it to be true and accurate, and that we will prevail. As we said at the time, it was an important piece that raised questions about a presidential contender and the perception that he had been engaged in conflicts of interest.
We plan to defend the suit vigorously and expect to prevail. We have insurance, so there is no material financial exposure; we view defending libel suits as an ordinary cost of doing business.javascript:insertTags(' EBohan ( talk) 14:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)',,)
Numerous citations demonstrate the subject being covered in multiple reliable sources, some of which predate the NY Times story which prompted attention into her lengthy public lobbying career. Unless I see some significant discussion here, I'm removing the January tag in 24 hours. Notability has been under discussion since the original creation of the page, and the last measurement of consensus was concluded with a statement that the existence of this page tends to balance negative connotation which might be drawn from coverage of the controversy on its own page (a page originally created by extraction from this pagespace). Citation has been added after that DRV process, and notability doesn't expire. Unless somebody wants to relist this for AfD, I assert notability. (For my part, I've been a pagewatcher since the first minutes of page creation, and have participated on both sides in previous deletion discussions.) BusterD ( talk) 13:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
In the last few days, an ip editor ( User:199.47.100.133) has been making changes to the content pf this page, specifically removing mention of her previous lobbying employer from the lede, also removing the mention of the lobbying controversy in the lede. The new editor seems to have reason to believe the subject has created her own lobbying firm, but has failed to show any reliable source which verifies this. Further, each time the blankings have occurred, the underlying code has been disturbed leaving a broken page. I have zero qualms with page improvement, but have tried to start a dialogue on the ip's talk page and again here. Let's discuss how to improve the page without wholesale removal of sources and by following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, specifically those related to WP:Biographies of living persons. BusterD ( talk) 11:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I saw and reverted an insertion this morning and then saw another reverted by another admin I'd notified of my first revert. I went to this trouble because it's likely reliable secondary sources will soon emerge covering the twitter and substack argument between Ms. McCain and Mr. Schmidt. Let's keep our eyes on the ball folks. We're an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Let's collect the sources and follow them. BusterD ( talk) 13:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)