Talk:John McCain lobbyist controversy

Article name
Just to throw this out here, is this article properly named? So far the controversy has involved McCain and The New York Times. Not to mention the whole NPOV issue with the title.. Perhaps something like The New York Times' John McCain lobbyist article would be better? (But then, that seems a bit long to me)--Bobblehead (rants) 19:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When looking at the alternatives, I'm satisfied with the current title. I would object to Iseman being part of the title. BusterD (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 true. The conflict between McCain and the NYT is only one element. But I'm open to ideas. &#8756; Therefore | talk 19:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 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. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 Wikipedia that don't 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. &#8756; Therefore | talk 20:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 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". --Bobblehead (rants) 20:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article, with much detail, includes these criticisms. Actually, its the only part of the article I authored. &#8756; Therefore | talk 20:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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). --Justmeherenow (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And I've moved it back. We don't call it the Watergate-Washington Post controversy. It's just awkward to try and force the NYT into the title - is this a controversy about a New York Times lobbyist? FCYTravis (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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. FCYTravis (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Title John McCain–New York Times controversy over lobbyist would improve Wikipedia through its reflecting a marked increase of neutrality. --Justmeherenow (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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. FCYTravis (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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? --Justmeherenow (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an example of redirection. The controversy this article addresses is the questions raised about McCain's relationships with lobbyists. FCYTravis (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, correct me if I'm wrong here, but we're saying there exists (1) the Controversy over the allegedly goo-goolieyedness of McCain and his therefore showing off his influence; as well as (2) the Controversy of the New York Times' supermarket tabloidliness in covering said controversy; and then also (3... [ad infitum]) the Controversy about whether there is indeed more than the one original controversy and, therefore, what we should call it and/or them, and so on. Is that what we're saying? --Justmeherenow (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 article. FCYTravis (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness, for this article, I suggest the title Dispute over McCain's favors for lobbyist. ("Dispute" sounds more neutral than "controversy," since "controversy" so often means close to an outright scandal.) Then, for the lede sentence basically: In (year), John McCain made a couple of phone calls on behalf of lobbyist (name, blah blah'').


 * And only partly in jest, for over at Criticism of The New York Times I suggest the pertinent section be named Times story about McCain's run-of-the-mill favors for—[whispered] woman —[uh—ahem!] lobbyist. (Nothing more than that. Sorry, dear reader.) Its lede sentence: In (year), John McCain traded influence for...unproven-as-consumated, thus but the broadly defined definition of, well... "esS -- iyE -- eX"......  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 the details, such as they are, dear reader, please read the rest of the section.)--Justmeherenow (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 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 Wikipedia, however. (And no, I'm not a McCain hack.) - Nhprman 19:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Philosophical question: Is it moreso encyclopedic to go with initial secondarily sourced spin to primary events, or with tertiary analysis?*
 * The NYT is the initial secondarily sourced spin on the primary event of McCain's doing a couple of faves for a cutesy lobbyist.
 * 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.
 * __________
 * "*That is, applying to McCain---New York Times, reductio ad KuKluxKlanum, let's decide what's moreso encyclopedic, the initial secondarily sourced term, the Tulsa race riot, or such suggested terms arising from tertiary analysis as maybe the Tulsa Black Wall Street massacre or the Tulsa 'Nab Negro' massacre? Viz., were sensationalistic news reports moreso a scandal, or an interracial altercation in an elevator that was less than assault? IMO, the newsreports. 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 leads us to believe that the incident fell below the level of assualt. 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.' 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 black-on-white attack in an elevator than there was in the original actual argument between the two youths."
 * --Justmeherenow (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 elsewhere than WP. --Justmeherenow (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Dan Schnur - CNN Interview
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 sources). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macutty (talk • contribs)


 * That has been already added. From the article:"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.[3]" &#8756; Therefore | talk 20:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the article wasn't solely based on anon sources -- John Weaver was a source, much was public record. &#8756; Therefore | talk 20:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

NY Tines Followup
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Timing
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. 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 Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 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. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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. - Nhprman 19:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with redirection
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. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Am in strong agreement with redirect. Eusebeus (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, why? And please explain how and why that should override a strong consensus in the AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

'There is a longer discussion about this with more participants over at Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Please comment there instead.' Noroton (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Democratic response
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.SteveSims (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
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 clients are, etc. To quote from WP:ONEEVENT; Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. ... If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. So I propose merging a slimmed down version of Iseman's article into this one. In the meantime, as per WP:NPF, I'm removing the material on her page that is not relevant to her notability. DiggyG (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 the option of watchlisting changes that affected one topic, but not the other(s).


 * Could the person who placed the merge tag please address the previous merge discussion in Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman?


 * I would like ot know why this was tagged as if the tag was placed in February, when the tag was actually placed in July?


 * The person who proposed the merge has said they would trim material from the Vicki Iseman article under the authority of WP:NPF. I had to look up "NPF". It expands to WP:Biographies of living persons.


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


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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?


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


 * Who do we want to have the power here -- our readers -- or ourselves, the contributors?


 * 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 mergist friends.


 * I think what we have here is an article that totally complies with all of the wikipedia's policies, particularly the neutrality and verifiability policies. This article survived an afd. 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 they don't like it.


 * Here are some of the recent references to Iseman:
 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 article (John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008) should go away; it will still cover both the lobbying and Iseman relationship apsects. I'm saying that a separate Vicki Iseman BLP article is no longer necessary, per WP:ONEEVENT: "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 WP:ONEEVENT article if ever there was one, with no good sourcing unconnected to this one event. Merge. Noroton (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I also strongly concur with the merge. As Geo Swan (inadevertently) demonstrates above, this is clearly within the purview of our WP:ONEEVENT guideline and as such it should be merged. Eusebeus (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * @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. DiggyG (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 WP:ONEEVENT 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 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).


 * I'm also going to have to strongly object to this:
 * "'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.'"
 * 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. DiggyG (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope that User:DiggyG has read the deletion processes associated with the Vicki Iseman 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 current version, pretty much) the pedia gives proper weight to positive and negative information about the subject. BusterD (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 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 Lewinsky-style controversy, or an Alex Polier or Clinton's black baby type of thing. But now, months have passed since the story broke (and since anyone showed any interest in editing her page), and Iseman "essentially remains a low-profile individual" (quoted from WP:ONEEVENT). She's a textbook case of WP:ONEEVENT, and unless someone can address that concern, I think we need to merge with the controversy page. DiggyG (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2nd DRV submitter User:John254 dismissed the BLP1E argument in the statement: "...Vicki Iseman 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 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 User:Mackensen seems to confirm this assertion in the closing statement. You seem to want to re-argue the same case. BusterD (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 WP:ONEEVENT would almost always be trumped by WP:BLP and thus be a pointless guideline. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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 NPOV. While, I agree that Wasted Time R'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.
 * 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 material that's been added might be well-sourced, and neutral, but it is not notable. 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.
 * Now, it seems to me that the discussion so far basically boils down to including trivialities so as to maintain NPOV vs. deleting said trivialities in line with WP:ONEEVENT. For the reasons I just mentioned, I think the NPOV concerns are misplaced. DiggyG (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That last paragraph could have been more polite. Sorry about that.DiggyG (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Vicki Iseman 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 some of it appeared in local newspapers is to elevate subjective opinion over our biographies of living persons policy 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 blank all such favorable material, as DiggyG has attempt to do here, is an egregious WP:BLP violation. WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are not mere "trivialities". Of course, Biographies_of_living_persons and Biographies_of_living_persons are intended for far more salutary purposes than those that DiggyG has put them to. Biographies_of_living_persons is designed to avoid the creation of articles which are actually about scandals under the pretense of biographies of their participants, thereby placing massively undue weight on the scandals in our descriptions of people's lives. Biographies_of_living_persons is designed to avoid prurient descriptions of largely unpublicized but potentially controversial material concerning people notable for more mundane reasons. In short, our biographies of living persons policy is properly understood as a shield, designed to avoid harm to the reputations of living people described in Wikipedia articles. To twist the language of the biographies of living persons policy 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. John254 04:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * @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. DiggyG (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 John254 on the Iseman talk page:
 * "'The requirement of our biographies of living persons policy 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 merger of this article (or blanking all favorable information that it contains) is inconsistent with the spirit of WP:BLP was discussed extensively at deletion review and summarized by the closing administrator for your reading pleasure. John254 04:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)'"
 * 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 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 spirit of BLP requires you to balance every negative with a positive. Here is the description of "Balance" in the NPOV policy page:
 * "'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.'"
 * 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 "fair and balanced descriptions" of the facts about living people. 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 Mr. Rogers' page with some unfavourable stuff? (maybe he cussed once after stubbing his toe) DiggyG (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The policies being cited in opposition to merging are being misinterpreted; Quoting John254: "Of course, Biographies_of_living_persons and Biographies_of_living_persons are intended for far more salutary purposes than those that DiggyG has put them to." These policies are also supposed to prevent clutter and redundancy. "Biographies_of_living_persons is designed to avoid the creation of articles which are actually about scandals under the pretense of biographies of their participants, thereby placing massively undue weight on the scandals in our descriptions of people's lives. Biographies_of_living_persons is designed to avoid prurient descriptions of largely unpublicized but potentially controversial material concerning people notable for more mundane reasons." 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: "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 options." To begin with the policy deals with reasons not to create a page. You are interpreting it backwards - even as it explicitly favours a merger. 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 creating 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 "spirit of WP:BLP(i.e. do no harm)", 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. DiggyG (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * With due respect to all involved, DiggyG 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 consensus to merge. What is clear is that if DiggyG wants this merge, user will have to launch some 3rd AfD process to measure consensus more formally. And while DiggyG 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 WP:BLP violation in the "slimming" of the Vicki Iseman page. BusterD (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 process, which ended somewhat inconclusively. 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.)
 * 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 debate I'm sure we will be able to hash this out and come to a consensus. DiggyG (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. The accusation of wikilawyering is completely out of line. This clearly violates official policy per WP:ONEEVENT, which represents community consensus. I urge this to be merged and redirected per (global) consensus, since no material has appeared that challenges the reasons adduced by Diggy to merge. BusterD'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. Eusebeus (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 DiggyG and Eusebeus to stop trying violate the core principles of our biographies of living persons policy. It must be understood, of course, that the literal texts of Biographies_of_living_persons and Biographies_of_living_persons are not, by any stretch of twisted wikilawyering, "core principles". Rather, the "core principles" of the policy are clearly stated in its introduction:"Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially:"
 * "* Neutral point of view (NPOV)"
 * "* Verifiability"
 * "* No original research"


 * "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."


 * "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia 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 'do no harm'."


 * The general terms of the policy supercede the specific -- to the extent that particular applications of Biographies_of_living_persons and Biographies_of_living_persons 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 WP:NOT"Wikipedia is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep 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 encyclopedia, you should ignore them. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures."Now, why would Biographies_of_living_persons and Biographies_of_living_persons conflict with the general terms of the biographies of living persons policy? Under most circumstances, the ordinary circumstances to which these policy sections were intended to be applied, they don't. Biographies_of_living_persons is intended to deal with the longstanding problem of "coatrack" articles, which purport to be biographies, but really only discuss particular events in which their subjects were involved. "Coatrack" articles give massively undue weight to the events they describe in their portrayal of people's lives, thereby violating the requirement of the biographies of living persons policy that biographies be fair, balanced, and written from a neutral point of view. Special:Undelete/Crystal Gail Mangum is archetypical of such problematic articles, insofar as it consists almost entirely of information concerning the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case, under the pretense of a biography of the complaining witness. Similarly, Biographies_of_living_persons 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, 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 Vicki Iseman 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 Vicki Iseman 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 sort of negatively biased coverage that the biographies of living persons policy is designed to prevent. DiggyG has shown exceptional creativity in finding new and exciting ways to twist the biographies of living persons policy into a means by which to injure the reputations of living people, grossly misapplying Biographies_of_living_persons to blank all information favorable to Vicki Iseman from her biography, thereby creating a "coatrack" article of the type that Biographies_of_living_persons is intended to eliminate. Don't take my word for it, however: Deletion review/Log/2008 May 4 indicates a clear consensus for my application of the biographies of living persons policy to this article, summarized by the respected former arbitrator Mackensen in his closing statement. The recent attempt to blank and redirect Vicki Iseman -- the proposed action can't actually be described as a merge, since its proponents find nothing to be worth merging -- 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 biographies of living persons policy, 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. John254 00:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First things first; there's no need for incivility. 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 watering-down 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 reputation.


 * You can call it "exceptional creativity in finding new and exciting ways to twist the biographies of living persons policy 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 if 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 have:
 * "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 Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material."
 * It is my position, and those arguing the other side seem to concede, that adding the material violates WP:ONEEVENT. 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.


 * It is my view that there is a misunderstanding about what NPOV 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 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 Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's feelings.
 * 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. DiggyG (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy 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 Vicki Iseman doesn't favor her interests. Consequently, such an action is not supported by the biographies of living persons policy.
 * It's a fairly well accepted principle of WP:NPOV (and, thus, WP:BLP) 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 WP:NPOV 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 Wikipedia community. In part, this is simply because all sentences in an article even modestly compliant with WP:NPOV 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 that"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."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 "John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008" largely consists of descriptions of what people and organizations have offered particular opinions concerning the events.
 * Our biographies of living persons policy does indeed provide that "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material."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 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 Biographies_of_living_persons, 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"
 * Of course, this very issue -- how to best apply the biographies of living persons policy to Vicki Iseman -- was discussed at Deletion review/Log/2008 May 4, 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:"The operative question in both this deletion review and the deletion discussion which provoked it was how to apply WP:BLP, in particular WP:BLP1E. 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 overturn the AfD instead of relisting. Mackensen (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)"John254 04:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You continue to misinterpret the scope of both BLP, and NPOV.


 * 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 going to see mission creep that will undermine the very reason for this site's existence.


 * Wikipedia 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 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.


 * 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 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. DiggyG (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your claim that"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."is blatantly incorrect. We have many policies and guidelines of general application, such as Verifiability, No original research, and Notability 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 person's interests into our biographies of living persons policy, since the scope of the policy would sharply limit their application: non-biographical articles, after all, may also require cleanup.
 * Your assertion that"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."is obviously false. WP:NPOV violations may indeed be created by a biased choice of topics for discussion. Consider, for example, a hypothetical biography of Barbara Pierce Bush which focused primarily on the fact that Miss Bush once attended a naked party in the buff . 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 itself be imbalanced, and violate our neutral point of view policy. Furthermore, such an article would give massively undue weight to a single salacious event in its discussion of Barbara Pierce Bush's life, thereby violating our biographies of living persons policy. (Actually, the present article on Barbara Pierce Bush has been completely whitewashed of any controversial material, and reads as though it might have been written by the White House press office. Our biographies of living persons policy certainly does not require this, 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.)
 * 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 the May 4, 2008 deletion review and the respected former arbitrator who interpreted the outcome correctly applied our our biographies of living persons policy to this article, or that you, and the few other users who support the merger of this article have correctly applied the biographies of living persons policy? The untenability of your position is accentuated by the bizarre claims that you have advanced to support it, such as the assertions that the biographies of living persons policy 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 neutral point of view policy, propositions so obviously absurd that no one besides yourself has publicly endorsed them. (It is possible, of course, that your claim that WP:BLP "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 biographies of living persons policy 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 WP:BLP 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 has no justification in our biographies of living persons policy. Irrespective of which possible meaning is ascribed to your claim, its bizarreness remains unaltered.) John254 04:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 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 other similarly redundant pages. DiggyG (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already provided an extensive explanation as to why Biographies_of_living_persons does not support the merger of this article. The invocation of the notability guideline as a justification for the merger is frivolous, in the absence of any coherent explanation as to why Vicki Iseman would not be considered notable on the basis of the standards articulated in the guideline -- especially since the plethora of coverage of Vicki Iseman in third-party reliable sources clearly establishes a presumption of her notability per the general notability guideline. 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 biographies of living persons policy, and editors for whom "BLP is still secondary" to doctrinaire deletionism, who support the creation of WP:BLP-violating imbalances in our coverage of living people to satisfy WP:IDONTLIKEIT concerns. John254 02:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoa, WP:TLDR. 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. Eusebeus (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're not even willing to read other users' comments before participating in this discussion, then you should at least read the statement by Mackensen, a respected former arbitrator, in closing the May 4, 2008 deletion review for Vicki Iseman, which clearly and concisely summarizes why our biographies of living persons policy favors the retention of this article:"The operative question in both this deletion review and the deletion discussion which provoked it was how to apply WP:BLP, in particular WP:BLP1E. 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 overturn the AfD instead of relisting. Mackensen (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)"John254 01:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 if 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 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. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 01:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

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. BusterD (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 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 Alcalde and Fay, a company whose noteworthiness is certainly greater than Iseman's. (I'll help too, when I have time.) DiggyG (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding sourcing
Ordinarily the New York Times is considered a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia, 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 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. Ray Talk 00:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was moved – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008 → John McCain lobbyist controversy—--Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. 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. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. The extra details in the title that dont need to be there. < If that made sense. --Lcawte (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on John McCain lobbyist controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090105043018/http://www.valawyersweekly.com:80/weeklyedition/2008/12/30/lobbyist-vicki-iseman-files-27m-suit-against-new-york-times/ to http://www.valawyersweekly.com/weeklyedition/2008/12/30/lobbyist-vicki-iseman-files-27m-suit-against-new-york-times/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on John McCain lobbyist controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/02/john_weaver_speaks.html?hpid=topnews
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-media22feb22,1,3173594.story?page=1&cset=true&ctrack=1
 * Added tag to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/21/mccain_camp_takes_on_the_new_y.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227045214/http://news.bostonherald.com:80/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1075170&srvc=home&position=rated to http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1075170&srvc=home&position=rated
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228081032/http://writ.news.findlaw.com:80/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/dean/20080222.html to http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/dean/20080222.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080225150205/http://slate.com:80/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/02/20/its-about-vicki-stupid.aspx to http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/02/20/its-about-vicki-stupid.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/24/why-are-conservatives-so-delusional-about-the-mccain-story.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015125651/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/02/john_weaver_speaks.html to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/02/john_weaver_speaks.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

steveschmidt
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 WP:BLP. "As we all know, all content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." Even more so on a BLP. Cheers, -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 12:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't you know silly Wikipedia policies don't apply to Republicans? Sarcasm aside, I've removed the section for now, per WP:BLPSPS: Vicki Iseman is a living person, and controversial claims regarding her in any article must be held to exceptionally high standards of sourcing and accuracy. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting what I missed. I don't know how more clearly I can say that Steve Schmidt is not a reliable source.  -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 20:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)