Talk:John McCain lobbyist controversy

3813:. In a correct application of said doctrine, the outcome should be a balance of positive and negative information concerning the subject; at the very least there should not be an overwhelming preponderance of negative information. To quote the policy: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." At present the sole coverage of Iseman is in the context of the alleged controversy, which seems a perverse result. A clear majority of editors below believe that BLP1E has been satisfied (or, rather, that it does not apply here); said editors also point to the existence of pre-2008 sources on Iseman and the existence of information outside the campaign controversy. Given the non-libelous state of the article prior to its deletion and the lack of a complaint from the subject the result is to 3370:. In a correct application of said doctrine, the outcome should be a balance of positive and negative information concerning the subject; at the very least there should not be an overwhelming preponderance of negative information. To quote the policy: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." At present the sole coverage of Iseman is in the context of the alleged controversy, which seems a perverse result. A clear majority of editors below believe that BLP1E has been satisfied (or, rather, that it does not apply here); said editors also point to the existence of pre-2008 sources on Iseman and the existence of information outside the campaign controversy. Given the non-libelous state of the article prior to its deletion and the lack of a complaint from the subject the result is to 732:

include the media controversy in the title. If it is determined that the New York Times falsified their information, then it would rise to a level of controversy that required a mention, don't you think? Right now the controversy has to do with the use of anonymous sources and whether it was politically motivated. But because, say, the Paula Jones controversy started in a conservative publication, should it be a part of the title? Now, please, in no way has this issue risen to the level of that, so the analogy is, at best, rough. But the same issue of the initial source of information is involved.

2763:. The first issue, "undue weight in the context of the individual," only applies to Iseman's page - that's the only place where this would be "in the context of the individual." If Iseman doesn't have a page, then the material is being presented in the context of the scandal. The second issue "redundancy and additional maintenance overhead" clearly supports a merger. The last part, "problems for our neutral point of view policy" seems to be what everyone is worried about. In this context the policy is explicitly talking about violating NPOV by 3168:. On user John254's first comment in this thread he made accusations about pro-merge/delete people trying to "injure reputations," now that user Eusebeus has made a good faith contribution, user John254 accuses both of us of "trying violate the core principles" of BLP. We might not agree on how to interpret policy, but no one here is "trying to violate" anything. I don't care how much experience you have as an editor, that crap is uncalled for. I can't speak for Eusebeus, but I am trying to improve wikipedia by preventing clutter, and the 2168:: "Knowledge (XXG) is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Knowledge (XXG) article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." I'm not adamant about this issue, which is why I haven't raised it myself, but if it comes to a merge poll or another AfD, that's the way I would lean. 2055:

bid for the presidency in 2000. Although the curry of the controversy focused on his romantic relationship with Vicki Iseman, a 33-year-old single woman, who worked for the lobby, and who was often tracked alongside McCain during his campaign in 2000. Though the controversy did harm McCain somewhat, the irony of this scandal was the timing of the issue, just when he had taken the GOP front seat in seeking the presidential nomination. Unknown sources of the Times questioned the reliability of the entire story.

478: 457: 2633:

people can cite for keeping the article. She's a lobbyist, if anything it's her job to get close to her clients. If there is a negative slant, it's a very soft negative and not enough to justify adding her high school cheerleading, etc. B) In any case, I really feel you're misinterpreting the NPOV part of BLP: material worthy of inclusion should be presented in a neutral manner - and her involvement in the scandal is presented more or less neutrally. But I don't think even the

4044:. This article's had many names, but this was one of them. It was moved here: "02:22, April 20, 2008 SteveSims (talk | contribs) m (moved John McCain lobbyist controversy to John McCain lobbyist controversy (2008): to not diminish the Keating Five article)" However, I don't think there's a danger of confusing this minor flap with the Keating Five. In that case there were no lobbyists involved, really – Keating went directly to the senators and told them what he wanted. 3344:, or might give undue weight to negative material). However, it would be a bizarre misapplication of this policy provision to remove all favorable information concerning a living person from a biography, leaving an attack page comprised entirely of negative material, then claim that the favorable information couldn't be immediately restored because "The burden of evidence... rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material" 383: 488: 3496:

Iseman so I will hold off on starting such a process until after the election. Hopefully that won't be necessary, and I urge you to reconsider your position so that we can get this thing settled much sooner. However your current understanding of the spirit of BLP and NPOV is not supported by the policy as written, and if it takes an AfD to settle that, then I'll be back here in November to get the ball rolling on that process.

2587:@John254 IMO I'm a pretty responsible editor and think you're out of line to imply otherwise, and even more out of line to accuse me of trying to injure Vicki Iseman. When I first visited Iseman's page, it seemed to me to read more like a vanity page than anything else, so I decided to make some bold edits. Those edits were done in good faith and I would appreciate if you would refrain from making baseless accusations. 2858:'s suggestion is the kind of local talk page obstructionism that is unhelpful - finger-pointing & insinuation instead of actually doing anything to improve the article such that it does not make a mockery of our BLP principles. After all the grief to get BLP approved as policy, it is unaceptable that a few motivated editors feel they can engage locally to contravene its core principles. We can do better than that. 373: 352: 282: 264: 2471:'s suggestion is doable, I don't think even that step is necessary. IMO you are misapplying the NPOV policy. By mentioning her factual involvement in this story we are not exhibiting bias. The facts themselves do not have a POV. I'm sure she's a very nice person, but it is not wikipedia's place to provide good press for people who have been in the news under less than ideal circumstances. 3285:) that our biographies should not pruriently focus on scandals in the lives of people they discuss -- the last thing we should do is provide an extensive treatment of scandals, because we think they're interesting, but ignore other well-sourced aspects of subject's lives by denigrating them as "clutter." Despite your contention to the contrary, there is a general consensus that 233: 621: 593: 710:

really reflect both the acting parties. As far as the WaPo article goes, the triggering event for that article was the NY Times article and the WaPo article hasn't really been sucked into the "controversy" yet. Also, a rename of the article would allow this article to include TNR's article on the build up to NYT actually publishing the article. --

748:

with the innuendo about an extramarital affair included. The number of editors from other reputable news organizations that are coming out and saying they would not have published the article in its present state and the amount of inner turmoil that the NYT went through prior to publishing the article are important parts of the "controversy". --

2996:) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is " 1070:

publication. The spinmeisters making this about a "lobbyist controversy" want to imply that this is a substantive controversy ON McCain's part. It is not, at this point. So far, it's an example of shoddy journalism. Far be it from me to expect anything but liberal mob edits on Knowledge (XXG), however. (And no, I'm not a McCain hack.) -

3583:. Even if the article provided a "balanced" discussion of the liberal view that Miss Bush's nudity was courageous and liberating, the conservative Christian view that the public nudity was a carnal sin, and everything in between, it would nonetheless be clear that the article's excessive focus on a single incident of nudity would 1389:

candidate. McCain's relationship (friendly, romantic, whatever) with Iseman has been one of those "worst kept secrets" since 2000 and that it has also been known for years that some of McCain's closest associates and friends are lobbyists. But yes, it could be mentioned more in depth in the article, particularly in the lead. --

3769:. I suggest taking this back to AfD for a merge, or else to mediation cabal. This clearly falls within the ONEEVENT provision of BLP; suggestions to the contrary are baffling. So, let's get some more eyeballs on this and hopefully move beyond the highly -motivated uberprolixity of a few editors whose passion has been aroused. 2663:. To take an extreme example; say there's a some material about a really horrible crime; should we balance out this "negative" portrayal of the murderer/rapist/whatever with some information about how Stabby McGee volunteered at a pet shelter as a teenager? Conversely should we balance out the overwhelmingly positive tone of 3690:

creation of what is essentially a personal website (or fansite) hosted on wikipedia. It's the notability and the ONEEVENT policies which should lead a reasonable person to clean up this page. More generally the overriding core principle of wikipedia: that material should be encyclopedic, is being slowly violated by this and

292: 3855:

information on Iseman indepedendent of the controversy. To argue that Iseman is no longer actively (i.e., no new news) in the media, then you are arguing for the deletion of thousands of articles; that shouldn't be the criteria. This page does no harm to the subject; instead it provides neutral information.

2646:"When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that are most reliable and notable." 3894:

I have to agree with you. (Though perhaps it's drawn few comments because very few people are interested in Iseman anymore?) Maybe, I'll have the energy to pursue an AfD later - but I promise to hold off until after the election. And who knows? Maybe the NYT will have something more to say about this

3854:

most of the detail of this article is added to the merge target -- that is the purpose of a merge. If, as has been the case in all past similar discussion, the objective is to simply redirect this page, then you are arguing for the deletion of the text and that would be a loss: it provides background

3289:

violations can occur as a result of biased selection of which well-sourced facts to include in an article. The claim that "Facts are not opinions, and recording the fact of a negative event's occurance is not the same thing as representing an anti-subject POV." is not supported by the Knowledge (XXG)

3236:

means. I contend that removing the material does not violate NPOV since there is no competing POV that would be corrected by leaving it in. Facts are not opinions, and recording the fact of a negative event's occurance is not the same thing as representing an anti-subject POV. I'm not suggesting that

3102:

is only notable for one event (despite the comprehensive nature of press coverage concerning her), and that this putative limited notability therefore justifies removing all favorable information concerning her, leaving only coverage of the scandal in which she was involved, thereby creating the very

2750:

Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better

2632:

And here's my response: Yes, I've (mostly) read it - but I am not proposing deletion, and find it strange to give so much weight to an inconclusive discussion. A) I also have to take issue with this assessment that the McCain thing reflects unfavourably on her. This seems to be the only justification

2415:

was such a biography, deleted on the basis of vote-counting and a purely mechanical application of WP:BLP1E in a manner manifestly contrary to its purpose. Indeed, the deletion of this article itself constitutes a WP:BLP violation, since it removes almost all of our well sourced favorable information

2054:

For McCain, the New York Times dropped this H-bomb, when in a front-page issue, the Times exposed McCain's scandalous role of supporting the Paxson Communications (now Ion Media Networks) in a bid for a TV station in Pittsburgh with the FCC, while also taking financial donations from the lobby in his

1544:

I strongly disagree. Watchlists work best if articles are about one topic, and one topic only. Merging related but distinct topics into a single article -- as is being suggested here -- is a disservice to readers. When related but distinct articles are merged readers who use watchlists no longer have

1507:

The Vicki Iseman page has very little meat to it; her career and her bio are not notable except for her cameo appearance in this McCain controversy (or NYT controversy if you prefer to call it that). Nobody needs to know what high school she went to, what her extra-curricular activities were, who her

685:

This involved both the NYT and Washington Post articles. It is a controversy -- I'm not to sure how it is POV -- it seems to be neutrally titled which doesn't require that it has no point of view. Someone else suggested "scandal" and that is clearly not neutral. That this is a controversy seems to be

3093:

is intended to deal with the problem of editors scouring every possible source in search of scandal with which to fill biographies of people notable for entirely unrelated reasons. However, no policy can anticipate and correctly deal with every conceivable circumstance to which it may applied. Thus,

2791:

is involved in some serious wikilawyering here, and none of user's arguments are new, all this being discussed recently in a 2nd DRV process (May 15 close). Seven days after the commencement of this discussion, I don't see many editors making arguments in support of user's positions, certainly not a

2614:

that we provide fair and balanced descriptions of living people far supersedes your subjective assessment of whether content is "interesting enough for wikipedia", and your attempt to apply a literal interpretation of the policy in a manner manifestly contrary to its purpose. The question of why the

2521:

has been in the news under favorable circumstances, to such an extent as to provide sufficient material for a fair, balanced, and comprehensive biography. To declare that only the scandal in Iseman was involved was "real news", and to denigrate all other coverage as "small town fluff" simply because

2155:

All of your press examples are just references back to the NYT story earlier this year, usually in the context of discussing media coverage of McCain. None of them are new investigations into McCain's relationship with Iseman, or new interviews with Iseman, or anything like that. I'm not saying this

1054:

The Times looked and looked but were unable to come up with any evesdropping or keyhole-peeping witnesses—or, better yet, a manilla envelope containing a sheaf of glossy photos some interested party had surruptitiously thrown over the Newspaper offices' transom. Nothing. (But to fill out the rest of

3443:

BLP is absolutely not intended only "to protect the interests and reputations of living people." It is intended for a much more limited purpose: to protect the interests and reputations of living people insofar as concerns material genuinely worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Otherwise you are

1650:

If that is what you are arguing may I suggest you do your own web search on her? I did so and I found multiple recent reports. I can understand that apologists for McCain would want to suppress coverage of Isaman -- they would want to bury this story. But I don't understand why serious contributors

747:

Other controversies that have been started by articles in RS have generally not been to the degree that the NY Times has become part of the "controversy" thus far. I don't think the controversy around NYT has anything to do with them "falsifying their information", but rather publishing the article

3647:

is quite properly (and prominently) concerned with preventing living people from being harmed by some highly unencyclopedic material, and irrelevant to this discussion, since, even if true, it would in no way refute my claim that if an action in no way protects the interests of a living person, it

3339:

Like other specific provisions of the policy, this sentence has a particular purpose, namely, to limit the introduction of potentially harmful information concerning living people into the encyclopedia. Editors can't claim that a living person was involved in some salacious scandal on the basis of

3205:

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Knowledge (XXG), but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the

2474:

If we follow the above logic then anybody mentioned in passing in any scandal that features on wikipedia should have their own page so as to present a balanced picture of that person - even if that means adding otherwise unencyclopedic material. And that's precisely what this page consists of. The

2364:

I don't think we need to add fluff just to balance out other not-particularly-negative information. Is there anything on Iseman's page that's notable outside of the context of the controversy? IMO none of that fluff is of any encyclopedic value, and it should be pruned. That would leave an article

2349:

page. Strongest argument given by closing admins inevitably boiled down to fairness to the article's subject. By merging the Iseman page with the controversy page, the pedia tended to give undue weight to negative information about Iseman; by keeping the separate and neutral biography page (in its

1854:

McCain has a long history as a carouser. One of his early girlfriends was an exotic dancer and there are allegations that he improperly used Navy aircraft to ferry his girlfriends around the country. Earlier this year a New York Times report, heavy on innuendo, reported that a lobbyist named Vicki

3959:

Ordinarily the New York Times is considered a reliable source for the purposes of Knowledge (XXG), but the event detailed here is not an ordinary article -- the article came under criticism that even the NYT's own public editor characterized as "lopsided," and culminated in an extraordinary legal

1159:

An elevator attendant who was a young white woman had let out a verbal remonstration as a young black man left the elevator. Nowadays, it's wondered whether this was due his having accidentally grabbed her arm upon leaving or if they had quarreled; yet the authorities' declining to arrest the man

946:

We have precisely one (conservative-biased) source who is calling the NYT's reporting on this matter "supermarket tabloid." There is substantive debate to be had over the focus, sourcing and possible "rush to publication," but that is not the primary focus of either this real-world debate or this

731:

You are correct that the controversy isn't limited to McCain. But isn't that always the case when a mainstream media outlet reports on a controversial issue? The outlet becomes, by necessity almost, a part of the controversy? I could list other "controversy" articles on Knowledge (XXG) that don't

3553:

which are intended to ensure that all content is "genuinely worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia", irrespective of whether it pertains to a living person. It would be an odd and ineffectual choice to write general cleanup and content quality provisions unrelated to the protection of any living

3495:

I have read the deletion review, and I'm sure Mackensen is very well respected, but even well respected people can be wrong, and I am sorry to say that I disagree with his and your conclusion. I don't really know how to get another AfD started, and I frankly don't even care that much about Vicki

3469:

Knowledge (XXG) needs only be neutral as concerns "significant views" and events. In the treatment of Iseman's role in the controversy both significant views are represented: that she did act sort of improperly, and that she didn't. I can't even understand exactly what "significant view" you are

2827:

I don't think a third AfD is needed yet (I'm not proposing deletion - is AfD still the right procedure?). I honestly think that anti-merge people are misinterpreting NPOV (and that user John254 is misrepresenting BLP, perhaps unintentionally). If everyone would make a sincere effort to engage in

2290:

policy, and I don't think anyone has said anything that tries to justify not merging with regards to that policy. There's nothing interesting on Iseman's page that isn't already on the McCain-controversy page; that seems to me like a clear-cut case of unneeded duplication - and given that it's a

709:

But the controversy is not limited to John McCain. NYT is catching a lot of flack as a result of the article. The POV is that the NYT's part in the "controversy" is not mentioned in the title. It's a bit premature for a "common name" to exist for the issue, so until one is made, the title should

1901:

The debate represented a new low for the news media during this campaign season, perhaps even topping the New York Times' ridiculous insinuation, that Sen. John McCain had been beyond friendly with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. McCain and Iseman both denied the insinuation and the New York Times never

1803:

Link this issue to McCain's integrity problem. Everybody wants to put those accusations of McCain infidelity behind them. It's a sleazy topic (and an icky thought.) But the real story of his association with Vicki Iseman is his ongoing use of lobbyists' airplanes and money. Surrogates should be

3689:

I would prefer if you didn't misrepresent my words. I didn't say that BLP is intended for general purpose cleanup. I only said that BLP is still secondary to notability (it is after all an encyclopedia). And that you are misinterpreting (the spirit and letter of) BLP and NPOV as supporting the

2819:

When anti-merge users vaguely cite policy in order to suppress discussion that's ok, but when I suggest policy is being misinterpreted (in both spirit and letter), that's wiki-lawyering? What makes your and user John254's assertions so obviously valid? Once again, I'm aware of the previous DRV

1677:

I want our readers to have the power. Sometimes I am just a reader. I am curious. My curiousity takes me off in directions which, frankly, our mergist friends don't anticipate. I don't think our readers curiousity, my curiousity, should be circumscribed by the limits of the imaginations of our

1069:

What User:Justmeherenow said in jest is correct in fact. The article title is clearly POV since it skims over the fact that this article (self-admittedly, by the NYT ombudsman) was flimsy, had little basis in fact and did not back up the 'romance' issue or the 'favors' issue clearly enough for

1388:

The timing complaint is that why did the NY Times wait until now (2008 while McCain is running for President) to publish the article and, considering the NY Times is considered to be a "liberal newspaper", that it appeared to be released just as McCain all but confirmed he'd be the Republican

3037:

should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. If the rules prevent you from improving the

1270:

Dan Schnur,, McCains communication director durring the applicable time period has come out to say this story is not plausible. I think he's comments should be added to the article seeing as he is the only person willing to publicly comment (the NYT story was based exclusively on annonymous

1164:

Black citizenry amassed to protect the young man and white citizenry to "suppress" them. While the resulting mass murder of black residents was originally termed a "race riot," on further analysis it is clearly a "massacre." Also, there is clearly more of a scandal in the reportage of a

3151:-- is a clear attempt to circumvent the widespread consensus for the continued existence of this article, expressed at DRV, by utilizing a forum with far more limited participation: the DRV discussion clearly considered the existence or non-existence of the article, consistent with our 3265:

is intended for one purpose only: to protect the interests and reputations of living people. The policy is not designed for the purpose of general cleanup, or, as you put it, "trying to improve wikipedia by preventing clutter". Clearly, removing most favorable information concerning

1614:

The AfD was very close on Vicki Iseman, back when she and this controversy were much in the news. Five months later, the story has faded, there's been little or no media followup, and Iseman has lapsed into total obscurity. I'd say there's a good case for merging out her article.

2416:

concerning Vicki Iseman, with the result that we only describe Vicki Iseman in the context of the scandal in which she was involved, thereby producing the very sort of negatively-biased coverage that our biographies of living persons policy is designed to prevent." Closing admin

3294:

are statements of fact, not opinion, since opinions are characterized, not asserted. For instance, we wouldn't write "X is a good singer", but rather, something along the lines of "A survey by Y found that 88% of respondents characterized X as a good singer." Thus, to state

1414:

Since some people are claiming (in a highly bureaucratic fashion) that objection to the redirection needs to occur here rather than at DRV- I'm stating here my strong objection. There was a clear AfD keep. The redirection is directly counter to the community consensus.

3537:

2767:

a page. The "NPOV problem" seems to refer to overstating the importance of a person, (and perhaps also to inflating the importance of an event) by creating superfluous pages. More generally, NPOV is being misapplied here as I argued in my last post. As for the

2800:

has so far stayed within the letter of the rules, some of the language displayed here and in edit summaries seems to demonstrate some inherent bias on user's part. There's min-maxing taking place here, and I agree with John254's assertion of egregious

2326:

I did give a stronger argument, and you've yet to respond to it. I hope we can have this discussion without making these kinds of accusations. If you look through my edit history I don't think you'll find any hint of a political agenda of any kind.

3199:

it's going to be added must hold up under American libel and privacy (and other) laws, and NPOV (and other policies not being disputed here). A couple of sentences down (in the only part of the intro that wasn't quoted in the preceding post) we

1343:

Today Feb. 23 the New York Times has an article on the efforts McCain made on behalf of Glencairn Ltd. a client of Vicki Iseman. McCain threatened to overhaul the Federal Commumications Commission if it denied Glencairn its regulatory loophole.

603: 2365:

whose content duplicates stuff found on the page for the controversy, which is why I've proposed the merge. A big part of the reason that previous discussion was inconclusive is because people wanted to "wait and see" if this became a

1952:

In the spring of this year, question marks were raised about John's fidelity, specifically during his first presidential bid when rumours sprang up about the nature of his relationship with a pretty blonde young woman, lobbyist Vicki

3849:

My thoughts (I was involved with this eons ago and was surprised to see that it had been undeleted): Per the arbitrator's comments, I agree that it isn't clearly a BLP1E problem as some have suggested. I have no problem with a merge

2003:

Univision was among several broadcasters that employed Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist whose friendship with McCain in the late 1990s prompted a top aide to warn her away lest the relationship undermine his reputation as a foe of special

153: 3470:

trying to balance. Iseman's possible involvement in this thing with McCain, and her other much less noteworthy activities don't even speak to the same issues and thus cannot possibly balance each other out in any meaningful sense.

3172:

of useful information. I wouldn't have blanked most of the page if I had known it would be so controversial, but at the time I felt that I was removing trivia, and I was most certainly not trying to cause injury to anyone's

2872:

I concur with the observation that "After all the grief to get BLP approved as policy, it is unaceptable that a few motivated editors feel they can engage locally to contravene its core principles." According, I would ask

3194:

into a means by which to injure the reputations of living people" - I call it reading comprehension. The "general terms of the policy" that you've highlighted do not support your position; it only says that the material

2824:. Once again it seems that anti-merge voices are trying to shut down discussion without actually making an earnest effort to engage the pro-merge argument. (As for allegations of bias; I'll respond on your talk page.) 3321:

is a requirement that we have a balanced presentation of facts, since we do not offer opinions. We do not attempt an untenable distinction between "pure facts" and "facts about who holds what opinion" -- indeed, the

3614:

While it is somewhat vacuously true that "even well respected people can be wrong", I ask which of the following situations is more probable? That the overwhelming consensus of established users who participated in

2772:, no additional harm is being done beyond whatever harm resulted from the NYT story in the first place, and even that is "balanced" by the inclusion of viewpoints that cast doubt on the NYT's reporting and motives. 3960:

settlement where Times was required to print an Iseman-dictated "clarification" of the story. I suggest that the article be somewhat rewritten to emphasize the shaky nature of the Times' allegations to the reader.

2479:. With the exception of the NYT front page story the sources are (essentially) hometown newspeople producing interest pieces - and not real news. You're trying to balance out a national story with small town fluff. 631: 1709:. Frankly I would warn our mergist friends that, if they can't find stronger arguments for merge they risk giving the unfortunate appearance of indulging in wishing to suppress material largely just because 1225:

I've thought about the above and now conclude that while tertiary analysis should in general be considered moreso encyclopedic, in matter of titles we should still to bow to consensus title coinages arising

3564:

Iseman's possible involvement in this thing with McCain, and her other much less noteworthy activities don't even speak to the same issues and thus cannot possibly balance each other out in any meaningful

1398:

The timing issue is also that 1) the paper had this story (such as it is) back in December, before the primaries even began but 2) released it only after McCain was a 'sure thing' to win the nomination. -

3359:, conclusively resolved in favor of my position, with far more widespread participation than can possibly be expected in this talk page discussion, and clearly explained by a respected former arbitrator: 2745:

If these were the only real goals of the policies, it would be explicitly stated in the policy. It shouldn't fall to someone like John254 to explain their secret meaning. The policy being sited states:

839:

Please stop trying to shove the New York Times into the article headline - it's getting more awkward by the moment. "John McCain New York Times controversy over lobbyist??" Discuss your proposals here.

2526:

which clearly requires the fair and balanced treatment of living people. To unilaterally declare that every bit of favorable information concerning a living person is "unencyclopedic", then summarily

3631:

is intended for general purpose cleanup unrelated to the protection of any living person's interests, and that a highly imbalanced choice of topics for discussion in an article does not violate our

3247:

We're trying to contribute to an encyclopedia here: the material we include ought to be interesting, and notable. Excessive concern for the subject's image is getting in the way of that objective.

1516:

Where a person is mentioned by name in a Knowledge (XXG) article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. ...

3098:

presents such exceptional circumstances, namely, that we have more than enough material concerning her to write a truly comprehensive biography. Nonetheless, some editors insist on claiming that

2578:

into a sword with which to injure the reputations of the very people the policy is designed to protect is abhorrent, and something that I, and many other responsible editors, will firmly oppose.

4131: 3237:

there can't be NPOV violations by omission, only that including a negative notable event does not create a need to scrounge up out a balancing positive event; there's a reason BLP doesn't say

3094:

there may necessarily be exceptional circumstances in which the purely robotic application of the literal text of the policy frustrates its purpose, and produces a bizarre result. The case of

889:

Would the dual-named title avoid so much undue weight to McCain's side of the controversy/controversies at expense of it being given to the controversy/controversies about Times' reportage? --

3340:

rumor and hearsay -- instead, a reliable source is needed, and, even then, the material might not be suitable for inclusion (for instance, it might be prohibited by a correct application of

4554: 2252:@Geo Swan, I'm not sure what the deal is with the tag. I'm pretty sure I followed the instructions for merging exactly, but if not I wouldn't mind if someone explained how to do it right. 4281: 518: 147: 1299:

Daniel Schnur, McCain's 2000 communication director with no current connection to the campaign, said it was "highly implausible"; that he would have been made aware of any such concerns.

3215:. In the absence of other concerns the above general principle of BLP favours deletion. However, most of those opposed have argued that removal would be a "egregious" violation of NPOV. 3155:, not the mere technical question of whether the article should be administratively deleted. This "kind of local talk page obstructionism... is unhelpful" and should cease immediately. 44: 3336:

The burden of evidence for any edit on Knowledge (XXG), but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

2651:

The policy refers to balancing viewpoints, and the McCain thing doesn't "contradict" anything about Iseman. Thus, I feel quite confident in my assertion that you only need provide "

2463:

The anti-merge people seem to essentially be arguing that deleting the article would leave a wiki-wide slightly negative coverage of this obscure woman, and that this would violate

3728:. We have a rather significant difference of opinion here, between editors who support the fair and balanced presentation of material concerning living people, consistent with our 2198:

Agree with the merge idea. Geo Swan's evidence is just what Wasted Time R says it is: evidence that it was the New York Times article, not Iseman, that was noteworthy. Iseman is a

212: 2321:"if they can't find stronger arguments for merge they risk giving the unfortunate appearance of indulging in wishing to suppress material largely just because they don't like it." 3639:"is intended... to protect the interests and reputations of living people insofar as concerns material genuinely worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia" actually means that "our 1855:

Iseman had a relationship with the candidate, including assertions that McCain even acknowledged "improprieties" to some of his staff. McCain and Iseman flatly denied the story.

1637:

Let me see if I understand your argument for merging. Basically, you are saying the article should be merged because Iseman is no longer being mentioned in the Press -- correct?

535: 1162:

Yet the headline of the initial news report demanded that authorities "Nab Negro for Attacking Girl In an Elevator." And a follow-up story reported: "To Lynch Negro Tonight."

2570:

is designed to avoid prurient descriptions of largely unpublicized but potentially controversial material concerning people notable for more mundane reasons. In short, our

1373:. Not being an American, I'm a bit unclear on what the timing issue is since there were no primaries around then and McCain has basically already won the nomination anyway 3023:

would conflict with the fundamental principles of the policy, they are overriden by the policy's general provisions. This form of policy construction has been codified in

1488:

Howard Dean, and I believe Barack Obama too, said that his personal/professional closeness with the lobbyist, not his alleged romantic affair with her, was the main issue.

3643:

is intended to prevent material genuinely worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia from harming the interests of living persons." This claim would be both incorrect, since

4349: 4345: 4331: 4171: 4167: 4153: 571: 1937: 4301: 3611:, but does require that if we were to include controversial material in the biography, such material could not comprise an excessively large portion of the article.) 4019: 3879:

Please challenge this statement: After three weeks, this discussion has gone stale, has drawn few users' comments and has demonstrated no clear consensus to merge.

3323: 2157: 2101:

He denied that he'd ever had a meeting with comely lobbyist Vicki Iseman and her client Lowell Paxon, even though he had. And had admitted it in a legal deposition.

2574:

is properly understood as a shield, designed to avoid harm to the reputations of living people described in Knowledge (XXG) articles. To twist the language of the

1561: 1370:

I might be missing something but it appears to me that altho the article mentions the issue of timing twice, it doesn't explain what the issue with the timing was

217: 4549: 4291: 561: 525: 439: 2737:

scandals under the pretense of biographies of their participants, thereby placing massively undue weight on the scandals in our descriptions of people's lives.

2566:

scandals under the pretense of biographies of their participants, thereby placing massively undue weight on the scandals in our descriptions of people's lives.

875:

Why is it more neutral? The New York Times is not part of McCain's relationship with the lobbyist, nor is it the only news organization reporting on the issue.

2620: 1124:

Is the primary event a scandal? Or is its reportage? Let's look at a case where I believe secondary media reports were more the scandal than the primary event.

79: 4311: 4132:

https://web.archive.org/20090105043018/http://www.valawyersweekly.com:80/weeklyedition/2008/12/30/lobbyist-vicki-iseman-files-27m-suit-against-new-york-times/

2291:

biography of a living person we have even stricter wiki-policies to keep in mind than verifiability and neutral point of view (which I'm not challenging btw).

4514: 2741:

is designed to avoid prurient descriptions of largely unpublicized but potentially controversial material concerning people notable for more mundane reasons.

1464: 967:. ("Dispute" sounds more neutral than "controversy," since "controversy" so often means close to an outright scandal.) Then, for the lede sentence basically: 1804:

discussing the unseemliness of seeking financial relief (which is what civil immunity really is) for companies that have been wining and dining Sen. McCain.

4559: 4534: 1651:

to the wikipedia, who are committed neutral, unbiased coverage would want to suppress coverage of an individual who continues receive mention in the Press.

429: 200:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 3791: 3616: 3356: 3132: 530: 1155:

Viz., were sensationalistic news reports moreso a scandal, or an interracial altercation in an elevator that was less than assault? IMO, the newsreports.

4282:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080227045214/http://news.bostonherald.com:80/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1075170&srvc=home&position=rated

4261: 3799: 3729: 3709: 3649: 3640: 3628: 3624: 3620: 3604: 3596: 3555: 3348: 3341: 3330: 3271: 3262: 3191: 3152: 3136: 3128: 3116: 3112: 3104: 3090: 3074: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3020: 3016: 2893:

are not, by any stretch of twisted wikilawyering, "core principles". Rather, the "core principles" of the policy are clearly stated in its introduction:

2890: 2886: 2882: 2738: 2730: 2715: 2711: 2611: 2601:

I would like to keep discussion from being split up across the two talk pages. So I'm going to respond here to the following quote, from a post made by

2575: 2571: 2567: 2559: 2551: 2547: 2523: 2438:

It should be possible to expand and fairly describe Iseman in the other article, such that it's clear her life has more to it than just this. Otherwise

1583: 310: 192: 4135: 4539: 4317: 3603:

has been completely whitewashed of any controversial material, and reads as though it might have been written by the White House press office. Our

2968:. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be 405: 85: 4544: 4524: 3073:" articles give massively undue weight to the events they describe in their portrayal of people's lives, thereby violating the requirement of the 4462:

is a living person, and controversial claims regarding her in any article must be held to exceptionally high standards of sourcing and accuracy.

314: 1591:

I just checked. The merge suggestor has excised practically the entire article. I am going to revert this change and request greater discussion.

3627:? The untenability of your position is accentuated by the bizarre claims that you have advanced to support it, such as the assertions that the 903:

This is an example of redirection. The controversy this article addresses is the questions raised about McCain's relationships with lobbyists.

168: 2286:

As for the merge discussion itself; I don't think the anti-merge people have addressed my primary rationale for the merger. I quoted from the

501: 462: 4285: 3635:, propositions so obviously absurd that no one besides yourself has publicly endorsed them. (It is possible, of course, that your claim that 135: 4407:

is a primary source, from a connected individual, who is non-neutral. This falls far short of the coverage needed for a rumored affair on a

1839: 4529: 3720:

would not be considered notable on the basis of the standards articulated in the guideline -- especially since the plethora of coverage of

3082: 30: 2377:

type of thing. But now, months have passed since the story broke (and since anyone showed any interest in editing her page), and Iseman "

309:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge (XXG)'s articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 4519: 1753:

It took more than four months, but something finally beat out the Vicki Iseman story for its sheer chutzpah and utter irresponsibility.

396: 357: 3558:, since the scope of the policy would sharply limit their application: non-biographical articles, after all, may also require cleanup. 3086: 1521:

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted.

654: 513: 318: 3632: 3588: 3078: 2920: 2656: 2652: 2638: 792:

Per WP guidelines, I was "bold" and added the linking device of an en-dash in the title (as Style page says such a thing is done). --

305: 269: 99: 4327:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

2460:

No consensus was reached, so it seems to me that it's perfectly reasonable to try to revisit this now that a few months have passed.

1351: 930:

Controversy about whether there is indeed more than the one original controversy and, therefore, what we should call it and/or them,

3546: 2941: 104: 20: 4302:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080225150205/http://slate.com:80/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/02/20/its-about-vicki-stupid.aspx

2216:

I also strongly concur with the merge. As Geo Swan (inadevertently) demonstrates above, this is clearly within the purview of our

2039: 129: 4231: 4103: 4023: 3895:

lobbyist before then. I would also like to ask that the people who have put this article together try to bulk up the article for

3572:

violations may indeed be created by a biased choice of topics for discussion. Consider, for example, a hypothetical biography of

509:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

24: 1988: 74: 4454:

Don't you know silly Knowledge (XXG) policies don't apply to Republicans? Sarcasm aside, I've removed the section for now, per

4292:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080228081032/http://writ.news.findlaw.com:80/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/dean/20080222.html

3865: 3069:" articles, which purport to be biographies, but really only discuss particular events in which their subjects were involved. " 3061:? Under most circumstances, the ordinary circumstances to which these policy sections were intended to be applied, they don't. 1882: 1121:

The NYT is the initial secondarily sourced spin on the primary event of McCain's doing a couple of faves for a cutesy lobbyist.

964: 244: 125: 3034: 65: 4476:

Thanks for getting what I missed. I don't know how more clearly I can say that Steve Schmidt is not a reliable source. --

4312:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/24/why-are-conservatives-so-delusional-about-the-mccain-story.aspx

3326:" largely consists of descriptions of what people and organizations have offered particular opinions concerning the events. 807: 4275: 1287: 1150: 667:

When looking at the alternatives, I'm satisfied with the current title. I would object to Iseman being part of the title.

4416: 3039: 1578:

The person who proposed the merge has said they would trim material from the Vicki Iseman article under the authority of

1036:

In (year), John McCain traded influence for...unproven-as-consumated, thus but the broadly defined definition of, well...

4392: 3623:

to this article, or that you, and the few other users who support the merger of this article have correctly applied the

175: 4305: 4088:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

3993:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

627: 599: 1144: 4262:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-media22feb22,1,3173594.story?page=1&cset=true&ctrack=1

4255: 1691:

I think what we have here is an article that totally complies with all of the wikipedia's policies, particularly the

1018: 1013: 810:. It's just awkward to try and force the NYT into the title - is this a controversy about a New York Times lobbyist? 4295: 4136:

http://www.valawyersweekly.com/weeklyedition/2008/12/30/lobbyist-vicki-iseman-files-27m-suit-against-new-york-times/

2350:

current version, pretty much) the pedia gives proper weight to positive and negative information about the subject.

2160:) should go away; it will still cover both the lobbying and Iseman relationship apsects. I'm saying that a separate 1738: 1117:

Is it moreso encyclopedic to go with initial secondarily sourced spin to primary events, or with tertiary analysis?*

3805:

The operative question in both this deletion review and the deletion discussion which provoked it was how to apply

3362:

The operative question in both this deletion review and the deletion discussion which provoked it was how to apply

3085:

is archetypical of such problematic articles, insofar as it consists almost entirely of information concerning the

2615:

merger of this article (or blanking all favorable information that it contains) is inconsistent with the spirit of

3591:. Furthermore, such an article would give massively undue weight to a single salacious event in its discussion of 3542: 3315: 2997: 2965: 2931: 201: 109: 777:

The article, with much detail, includes these criticisms. Actually, its the only part of the article I authored.

4348:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

4318:

https://web.archive.org/web/20081015125651/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/02/john_weaver_speaks.html

4170:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2482:

Now, it seems to me that the discussion so far basically boils down to including trivialities so as to maintain

3737: 2796:

wants this merge, user will have to launch some 3rd AfD process to measure consensus more formally. And while

1710: 250: 141: 4489: 4440: 4383: 4239: 4049: 2451: 2173: 1620: 1235: 1176: 1060: 937: 894: 866: 797: 649:

Just to throw this out here, is this article properly named? So far the controversy has involved McCain and

3725: 3713: 3550: 2086: 1347: 1320:

FWIW, the article wasn't solely based on anon sources -- John Weaver was a source, much was public record.

1275: 1165:

black-on-white attack in an elevator than there was in the original actual argument between the two youths.

4286:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1075170&srvc=home&position=rated

4011: 1938:"Drugs, theft, sexual slurs and rows with her husband: The murky past of would-be First Lady Cindy McCain" 3043: 2821: 55: 4467: 4367:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

4355: 4321: 4209: 4189:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

4177: 3899:, a company whose noteworthiness is certainly greater than Iseman's. (I'll help too, when I have time.) 3732:, and editors for whom "BLP is still secondary" to doctrinaire deletionism, who support the creation of 3652:. Irrespective of which possible meaning is ascribed to your claim, its bizarreness remains unaltered.) 3015:

The general terms of the policy supercede the specific -- to the extent that particular applications of

1355: 404:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4238:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3212: 3211:

It is my position, and those arguing the other side seem to concede, that adding the material violates

3165: 3124: 3070: 3066: 2847: 2487: 2439: 2386: 2382: 2287: 2217: 2199: 2165: 1525:

So I propose merging a slimmed down version of Iseman's article into this one. In the meantime, as per

1509: 919:

Controversy over the allegedly goo-goolieyedness of McCain and his therefore showing off his influence;

70: 2769: 3716:

as a justification for the merger is frivolous, in the absence of any coherent explanation as to why

493: 211:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to 3290:

community. In part, this is simply because all sentences in an article even modestly compliant with

1929: 1730: 620: 592: 232: 3861: 3825: 3600: 3592: 3573: 3382: 3239:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's

2389:, and unless someone can address that concern, I think we need to merge with the controversy page. 1831: 1493: 1378: 1326: 1307: 952: 908: 880: 845: 815: 783: 738: 692: 161: 4455: 1980: 4478: 4429: 4269: 4249: 4045: 3968: 3783:

If you're not even willing to read other users' comments before participating in this discussion

3774: 2863: 2468: 2447: 2225: 2169: 2134: 2107: 2061: 2010: 1959: 1908: 1861: 1810: 1759: 1616: 1601: 1435: 1231: 1172: 1056: 933: 890: 862: 793: 215:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see 4352:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

4174:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

3810: 3367: 477: 456: 208: 4497: 4471: 4448: 4397: 4368: 4217: 4190: 4070: 4053: 4035: 4013: 3970: 3908: 3888: 3869: 3836: 3778: 3744: 3703: 3656: 3581: 3505: 3393: 3256: 3159: 2867: 2837: 2814: 2781: 2676: 2596: 2582: 2513: 2499: 2455: 2433: 2398: 2359: 2336: 2261: 2229: 2211: 2177: 2138: 1788: 1624: 1605: 1538: 1497: 1478: 1453: 1439: 1424: 1403: 1393: 1382: 1359: 1330: 1311: 1239: 1180: 1074: 1064: 956: 941: 912: 898: 884: 870: 849: 819: 801: 787: 752: 742: 714: 696: 676: 661: 4113: 4004: 3884: 3710: