Talk:Katie Hill

Orphaned references in Katie Hill (politician)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Katie Hill (politician)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "General Election": From Bill Foster (politician):  From 2018 United States House of Representatives elections in California:  

Reference named "Primary Election": From Jahana Hayes:  From 2018 United States House of Representatives elections in California:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Article should be unlocked
Looks like this article was locked on Oct 19 by "Muboshgu" in response to edits that sought to include claims made by RedState.com.

It's my understanding that, as concerns Wikipedia, RedState.com should be considered as a blog, so rejecting these edits was correct. Disappointingly, "Muboshgu" reacts in a highly emotional fashion - one that some might interpret as partisan - by offering their personal opinion of RedState.com as "HOT GARBAGE". This seems unprofessional, as contributors would be better supported in making a productive contribution by being provided the reason for the rejection of their edit.

Regardless, there is now widespread secondary coverage of the claims made by RedState.com, including by mainstream media outlets (e.g. Fox News, Politico, LA Times). Representative Hill has also now responded directly to the claims made by RedState.com. Clearly this issue is notable and the article can now continue to be developed from reliable sources. It doesn't seem that there would be any reason to keep the lock.

By looking to Wikipedia precedent for how scandals involving leaked intimate pictures have been handled, the most relevant seems to be Joe Barton, where a section entitled "Sex scandal" is used. I would suggest the same for Representative Hill so as to ensure there are no questions of fairness regarding how this information is presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.213.246.94 (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * RedState is hot garbage and I do not regret saying so. Adding in these allegations is a WP:BLP violation. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments don't hold water because of the differences involved. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand that's your personal opinion of the source (I might even share it), but as an editor it's unprofessional to give a personal opinion when there are well-defined Wikipedia standards that you could cite just as easily. Do you understand this criticism?


 * While the story is being picked up by more reputable news organizations, the focus is on the allegations being unsubstantiated and Hill calling her husband "abusive". Funny you didn't mention that part. Other than the fact that they are in the process of a divorce (which I added to the article the other day), this is not appropriate to add to a BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I wonder if you read the link you shared. From your own URL, you can see the focus is the "improper relationship" ("https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/22/katie-hill-denies-improper-relationship-054313"). Additionally, the first paragraph of the article itself makes the focus clear: "Freshman Rep. Katie Hill is denying allegations that she had an improper relationship with a congressional staffer, and blamed the controversy on an "abusive husband" whom she is in the midst of divorcing." The independent clause covers the allegation of an improper relationship, while the dependent clause seeks to add context from Representative Hill's denial. Therefore the focus of the article is unambiguous. The only mention of Representative Hill's divorce proceeding are in relation to the allegations of sexual harassment.


 * All 4 stories currently profiled by Google News as "top coverage" focus on the allegations of an improper relationship. Only one mentions Representative Hill's divorce proceeding, and then only in the context of the allegations of an improper relationship.


 * Fox News - "Rep. Katie Hill fights back amid claims she was involved in romantic 'throuple' with staffer"
 * LA Times - "Rep. Katie Hill denies having relationship with staffer"
 * New York Post - "Freshman Rep. Katie Hill's 'throuple' uncovered amid bitter divorce"
 * Politico - "Freshman Dem Katie Hiill denies improper relationship with staffer"


 * Please note the Wikipedia guidelines on this issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy


 * "Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred."


 * Please be careful not to abuse BLP claims. This is a known issue on Wikipedia, particularly in articles at high-risk for partisan editing. The above excerpt from the main BLP page itself is unambiguous in its direct applicability to this dispute. If you do not agree, please detail your reaction, and let me know how to appeal. Again, it is unambiguous that BLP does not apply.
 * BLP always applies to a BLP. But you're right, I forgot about that particular clause of it. When I locked down the article, It was only a garbage blog reporting the allegations, and it was rightly left off the article. now that the big organizations are covering it today, we will have to add something on the allegation. I'll get to it later today if no one else does. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, NBC News (among others) reported, "The California Democrat admitted to having a relationship with someone on her campaign, but denied allegations of an affair with a member of her staff." Rep. Hill stated, "I know that even a consensual relationship with a subordinate is inappropriate, but I still allowed it to happen despite my better judgment.  For that I apologize."  I think those quotes from that report are a good place to start. Calbaer (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I have just taken a peek there. And I concur: RedState.com is "HOT stinking GARBAGE". I suspect 5 cent army editors to have created it. Zezen (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you! The worst part is they are hosting revenge porn. I've had to use WP:REVDEL on some edits where people have tried inserting that revenge porn onto this talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * How do you know that the people sharing those pics are the ones in the wrong? What if she's the one falsely accusing her husband of being an abuser, and all he's trying to do is even the score by retaliating? The fact that she has trashed his reputation as badly, or worse, as he's trashed hers seems to be disregarded here. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , in no case is it ever acceptable to release a nude photo of someone else without their consent. Period. We're not taking a stand on who was the "abuser" in the relationship, or if there even was one. The release of photos is clearly revenge porn and whoever did it is in the wrong. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of "unacceptable" stuff that goes on during divorces. It's pretty much no-holds-barred, mutually-assured destruction, which the courts pretty much wink at, because their attitude is, "You chose this person, so now you have to deal with what they're putting you through." It just happens that the false accusation of abuse is one of the weapons more commonly used by women, while the release of nude photos is more commonly used by men. To allow one weapon, while banning another, is unilateral disarmament. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow. (Walker Snarling) (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Affair stuff in article lead
I removed this portion from the lead because it appeared to misrepresent the story. From what I can see, Hill admitted to having an affair with a staffer before entering Congress. That affair is not the subject of an investigation. After giving it some thought, I went ahead and removed the rest of the mention of the investigation as well. If I were to pull out my WP:CRYSTALBALL I'd predict that this story will probably have a lasting impact on her career and will warrant inclusion in the lead, but I think we need to let the story breathe for a bit before we add it. Unless it is something that is inherently noteworthy for a BLP (like death, resignation,etc.) then we probably shouldn't be adding breaking news to an intro. Nblund talk 03:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good decision. It's too soon to know where if anywhere this goes. We should be in no rush to push a negative story in a BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is a bad decision. The allegations are already public and being published on washington post, the hill, CNN, Fox News and other known media sources. Obviously, people are trying to defend her on this article because she is a liberal poltician. They need to be held to their actions, and everything stated in the lede is true, no matter how "negative" people feel it is. Kozak4512 (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The lead of an article needs to cover prominent controversies, but we need to wait for the story to develop before we can really determine whether or not it is prominent enough to warrant mention in the lead. Simply being "true" isn't sufficient. Nblund talk 04:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you read her positions, you would know better than to call her a "liberal politician." She's a Democrat but her positions are very conservative. They should have kept her. 203.160.80.82 (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I think its inappropriate to keep adding this stuff while the discussion is ongoing. WP:1RR is supposed to foster deliberation and consensus building, it isn't just to turn fast edit wars in to slow ones. As to your point about leads: The goal of the lead is to summarize the most important points of the article. It does not (and can not) be an itemized list of everything we cover in the body. Other aspects of her personal life aren't mentioned in the lead, and we have no way of knowing whether or not this would have a lasting impact on her career. The OCE initiates dozens of investigations per term. Some of them end up being a big deal, but most are not. There's no harm in waiting and there's lots of potential harm in rushing. Nblund talk 17:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was unaware of this discussion. Note that a formal congressional ethics investigation is beyond personal life, even though the investigation is about her personal relationships. Banana Republic (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , if they rule that there's no ethical violation by Hill, then it would be most appropriate to keep it in "personal life". If this does impact her tenure, I'd agree it should go under "tenure". It's just too soon to know. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fair, but the salacious nature of the story is the main focus of a lot of the coverage. Rod Blum and Tom Garrett were subject to high profile investigations that ultimately didn't go anywhere because they left office. Chris Collins and Duncan Hunter Duncan D. Hunter were subject to OCE investigations that ultimately were referred to law enforcement for indictments. The latter are probably lead worthy, but the former probably aren't. Oddly Collins' indictment is the only one of those that is actually mentioned in the article lead the OCE investigation itself isn't necessarily a big deal. Nblund talk 18:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A congressional investigation is not "salacious". Banana Republic (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that it was. Nblund talk 18:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you thinking of Duncan Hunter's son Duncan D. Hunter perhaps? I see no mention that the person who's article you linked was ever subject to such an investigation. Nil Einne (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right, that explains a lot! But the larger point still stands that we don't necessarily mention ethics investigations in article leads unless they end up resulting in something more substantive like an indictment.  Nblund talk 16:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

So, with the development of her resignation, I think we can be clear that this does merit being in the lead, as we have incontrovertible proof that this will be WP:LASTING. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think an option that work for now would be: (Modeled on the wording from the Washington Post) Hill resigned amid an ethics inquiry into allegations that she had an intimate relationship with a congressional staffer. Nblund talk 02:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources 5 and 6 say Hill admitted to the affair with the campaign staffer (Desjardins) but that she has denied an affair with the Congressional staffer (Graham Kelly). I think it is worth adding that to this sentence "On October 27, 2019, Hill announced her resignation from Congress after reports of alleged sexual indiscretions with a congressional staffer (add: which she denies) and an admission to a relationship with a campaign aide." The steno pool (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Newsworthiness of nude photo
Several sites have now published the picture which makes it a topic of discussion. I feel the photo should be properly censored and not displayed in its original format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.196.182.14 (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and our WP:BLP guidelines, as well as basic decency, rule out any possibility that we're going to be including someone's stolen nudes anywhere on this website. Nblund talk 05:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a "topic of discussion". And it was a horrible thing for RedState to do. The story will continue to unfold over time. We have WP:NODEADLINE to complete it on our end. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The story as we know it on the affair and the leaked nude photos was was covered by the New York Times and numerous other reliable outlets. It meets WP:DUE and is suitable for inclusion, whether or not the story it will continue to "unfold" is irrelevant. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The story is already covered in the article. I understood the original poster to be suggesting that "properly censored" versions of the photos should be included in the article. Frankly, that's not an idea worth discussing. Some mention that intimate photos were leaked may warrant inclusion, but I'm not remotely convinced that there's any encyclopedic value in discussing the details of those photos here.  Nblund talk 22:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In any case we can not use the photos; they would be subject to copyright restrictions in favor of whoever published them. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

this is definitely very important to discuss as this is now going to define her political career. Please don't succumb to political bias yet again, wikipedia. Fefil14 (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Politico has also mentioned the "Nazi-inspired tattoo on her body". NibKing (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * NibKing, no, it mentioned that the Daily Mail reported that. Please be a careful reader. And when you are a careful reader, you will note that the tattoo does NOT resemble the picture of the Iron Cross in the Daily Mail article, which has a swastika superimposed over it: the tattoo doesn't have that. Whether that tattoo was Nazi-inspired in the first place is a matter of interpretation, and I am not going to trust the Daily Mail's ability to read the mind of the subject. Also, that stuff about "political bias" is just so much blah-blah. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody knows that "this is now going to define her political career", that's a WP:CRYSTALBALL violation. And the Daily Mail has been depreciated via WP:DAILYMAIL. We do not use it and I wonder if even the discussion of that tattoo on this talk page is a BLP violation. Left wing or right wing, in cases like these, we exercise extreme caution. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I note that on the Hebrew google news, the "Nazi tattoo" (mentioned as such in titles — example: Israel Hayom, here) was mentioned by various Hebrew RSs and was indexed at the very top for over a day. I guess the existence of that particular tattoo, more than anything, was a big deal in Israel. El_C 17:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm sure it is. Speaking as a Jewish person myself, it would be a huge deal if it was a Nazi tattoo. This is a major potential BLP violation, though, as many people have tattoos that appear to be the Iron Cross, but aren't. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, The Daily Mail cited this ADL description to support the claim that the cross was a hate symbol. But that page actually explicitly rejects that interpretation: an Iron Cross in isolation (i.e., without a superimposed swastika or without other accompanying hate symbols) cannot be determined to be a hate symbol. Just goes to show why they're a truly terrible source. If Hill does end up suing the DM over that claim, then it might be worth mentioning, but otherwise I have a hard time seeing why we would discuss it here. Nblund talk 18:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would we not discuss it here? Why can we not mention it in her wikipedia article? You claim that wikipedia is not a "news" website, but this has nothing to do with that. Nude photographs of her are on the internet and this is a fact. Maybe we can just leave it at that? Regardless, an encyclopedia is supposed to contain as much information as possible. We don't have to necessarily draw conclusions from her nude pics or her tattoo, but it's definitely still important to mention. We already have a section about her personal life mentioning she's bisexual, had a divorce, etc... as if any of that is more important, who gets to decide what's important or not? Fefil14 (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As you say, it gets determined by powerful editors based on their political biases (or possibly, in this case, sex biases). Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , do not cast aspersions. Remain civil and assume good faith. Our "bias" is towards conservatism regarding WP:BLPs. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As per I think your previous activity on this article raises serious issues regarding your neutrality as an editor. You offered a characterization of early Politico reporting on this story so clearly partisan that it makes an explanation consistent with "good faith" difficult to imagine. You should recuse yourself from this further editing of article and look for support from other peer admins/editors.
 * I dont think this guy has a right to moderate any page on wikipedia. Such a shame. Fefil14 (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a list of all things. It is certainly not a list of all the naked people on the internet. If the photos have a lasting impact that extends beyond WP:BREAKINGNEWS coverage, then they're probably worthy of mention. Nblund talk 01:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Who decides what constitutes a "lasting impact"? And while Wikipedia isn't a list of all things such as people with nudes, I'm sure you and I are both aware that there are some really absurd (yet humorous) lists on here. By the way, thanks for assuming good faith I actually just want to know the answer to this because it's not really explained in the WP:BREAKINGNEWS you linked, and I want to make sure my edits in the future are of good quality. Fefil14 (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPRS and WP:RECENTISM are probably the pages I should have linked to here. Whether it is worthy for inclusion is largely a matter of editorial discretion, but the 10 year test is a good rule-of-thumb. As it currently stands, we do mention the photos, and I think they probably are warranted, but the specific details of the photos probably aren't. Nblund talk 21:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * : I cant help but notice you added mention of this stuff to Wikiquote, and then linked to her Wikiquote on this page. To me, that looks like a pretty clear-cut case of WP:GAMING the system to try to make an end-run around the discussion here. Don't do that. Nblund talk 18:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , that is exactly what that appears to be. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's probably better not to import Wikiquote content disputes to Wikipedia. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , you've exported a Wikipedia dispute to Wikiquote. I'm going to read up on deletion at WQ and determine if that fits the criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You are removing sourced material about a well-known politician without justification. The affairs scandal and her resignation. is a well-known politician and this is a well-covered story and obviously a substantial part of her bio and public profile. Your arguments on this page are tedious and disruptive. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's a question: can you show me where the source says that she had "several affairs with congressional staffers?" There's a thread above this one where we were discussing whether to include the affair in the article lead. Please propose something there. Personally, I think the fact that she's resigning strengthens the case for mentioning this up top, but your edit offers a clear illustration of why we should proceed methodically when handling sensitive breaking news issues. Nblund talk 01:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You say one thing and do another. The basis for inclusion is about as strong as can be: the nature of the scandal that ended her political career/led to resignation almost certainly belongs in the lead along with the fact that she is resigning. There were allegations of improper relations with both Desjardins and Graham. The headlines mostly say "improper relationships." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , which of course is why you should not just trust a headline. There are two relationships, one (confirmed) with a campaign staffer and one (alleged) with a congressional staffer. Only the latter would be a problem with the House Ethics Committee. So that's one. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW: The cited headline actually got it right. "Several" means "more than two", "Congressional staffers" are different from campaign staffers, and "revelation" implies the discovery of a truth, whereas "allegation" suggests an unproven claim. That's three clear errors in a single sentence. This is why we need to hammer things out on the talk page. Nblund talk 02:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Several" does not mean "more than two," any more than "a couple" (throuple?) does. It seems the best way to describe it is to say that she carried on a relationship with a congressional staffer. We can probably omit "improper" since that seems to be passing judgment. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It absolutely does. I've proposed a wording in the discussion above, so that's probably the place to continue this discussion. Nblund talk 02:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , we don't know that she had a relationship with a congressional staffer. She denies it – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thats what's been reported in the press. NYT. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That report (and every other report) says that these are allegations, not facts. This is a pretty significant distinction. Nblund talk 03:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A politician doesn't need to admit to something for it to be significant. The test is based on coverage in reliable sources, and numerous national outlets from Politico to NYT have documented the allegations/ensuing scandal. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No one has made argued that this story should be excluded entirely. I really don't know what changes you're looking for here, but the language you suggested above did not indicate that this was an "allegation", and that obviously won't work. Nblund talk 19:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Actions speak louder than words. You removed references to the scandal from the lead based on supposed errors, but made no effort to fix or clarify the text--instead removing it entirely, which was inappropriate. You also made frivolous and weak arguments about the scandal being "insignificant" that are thoroughly unpersuasive. I've been consistent about my position that the material belongs in the lead. With the degree of coverage and fallout (resignation), it seems like that debate's been put to rest. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a few issues with your changes here. For one, describing the photos as "sexually explicit" seems a step too far. The photos depicted her nude, but not having sex or doing a sex act, and for the most part the media reports have called them "nude photos." Saying they were published "without her consent" is unnecessary in that it is obvious, WP:SAY. No one would infer that she gave permission to a tabloid to publish her nude photos. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , re: WP;SAY, some celebrities do release their own nudes intentionally (Kim Kardashian sex tape), so it's best to be clear that this was against her wishes. As for the "sexually explicit", what photos did the Daily Mail publish? All I'm aware of is one nude photo of her brushing the campaign staffer's hair. Are other photos the Mail published sexually explicit, or just nude? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily opposed to saying "nude photos", but other sources have said "sexually explicit" and I do think it is distinct from non-sexual imagery like, say, leaks of images from full body scanners. Nblund talk 18:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's stay out of the realm of conspiracy theories and bad comparisons. It is obvious they were released without her consent. Nudity and "sexually explicit" are two very different things and we should not conflate the two. The vast majority of sources have said "nude photos." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Katie Hill resignation
OK kids.....Many of the articles referencing her resignation reference the following Politico article:….in it, although she announced her resignation today, there is some question when it actually takes effect. The article states some sources stating Nov 1 as the effective date......i know its only 6 days, but I thought I'd mention it unless someone has better sources.....Pvmoutside (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Both the lead and the text now state that she announced on Sept 29 that she was going to retire from Congress, while not reporting any effective date pending further information. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The political bias
It is quite curious that although established sources have discussed Hill's Nazi-inspired tattoo, and her aggressive stance against Kavanaugh, neither of these issues have been allowed to go into this article. I see that wp:NPOV still means "no wrongthink point of view" allowed on Wikipedia. 2601:602:9200:1310:4422:EA17:C2EC:BF6C (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The only sources I could find about the tattoo were not Reliable Sources. They were sensationalist, tabloid-type publications. In any case we had pretty much agreed here that we would not go into any detail about the nature of the photos published - which were possibly given to the press illegally, since “revenge porn” is against the law in many jurisdictions. I'm not finding mainstream commenting about Kavanaugh either. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Does Wikipedia care about whether the leaking of a document or image was illegal? Suppose it were Trump's tax returns that had been illegally leaked; would we refrain from writing about those in an article, despite their newsworthiness? What about the ; those were also distributed illegally. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The WP:DAILYMAIL posts lots of things that turn out not to be true. So we don't trust them. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP applies to talk pages too.  Volunteer Marek   02:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * She claims that it is not her fault it is her husband's fault because he abused her. Why do you print $h1t like that? You don't know if it is true or not.124.123.106.121 (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems the scandal of affair with a staffer, including photo of her naked, with a bong and tattoo is widely mentioned in press. And the tattoo being nazi is said as a claim.  And that she is sueing the Daily Mail.  The Guardian, Washington Post,

Politico, Baltimore Sun that liberal media was burying the story, NY Post, LA Times, Medium, The Boston Globe, Toronto Sun, MSN, etcetera. And she apologised, e.g. Politico, USA Today, Fox News, so it seems key parts are missing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2019
Immediately below the heading 'Allegations of inappropriate relationships', please remove the words 'right wing' so that the paragraph begins "In October 2019 the website RedState published allegations that Hill was...", rather than "In October 2019 the right wing website RedState published allegations that Hill was..."

Thank you very much. 174.77.71.222 (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Changed to "political blog RedState". —  Wylie pedia  @ 11:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm changing it to "right wing political blog RedState". No reason was given for why we should remove "right wing", and RedState is not a reliable source, so we should say why. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't "political blog" already indicate why it wouldn't be a reliable source? Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2019 (#2)
The current structure of the article is not in keeping with how Wikipedia has handled precedentary articles involving leaked intimate pictures of US politicians, let alone the abuse of power issues (ala Weinstein) via the employee-employer nature of the allegations. We should look to these precedentary articles to ensure fair and non-partisan handling of this national news story, particularly as there are concerns regarding the potential bias of some of the active editors on this page.

Please see the article for Joe Barton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Barton#Sex_scandal), who resigned under identical circumstances and whose article features a "sex scandal" section. Note that Barton's alleged indiscretion was limited to infidelity, while Hill's is that of infidelity plus an abusive employer-employee relationship. Therefore please move this article's "allegations of inappropriate relationships" subsection to an independent "sex scandal" section, thereby reflecting its significance as the primary event triggering her congressional resignation.

As the Barton article also contains detailed descriptions of Barton's texts, it also seems appropriate to include a detailed description of the leaked images, if reliable sources can be found to support such descriptions. There might also be an argument that including the images is equally significant and parallel to the Barton article's inclusion of the actual text of his text messages. However, most important to the neutrality of the article is fixing the structural issue related to sectioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.213.246.94 (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The article does have a section on this now. Offering a detailed description of the images doesn't serve an encyclopedic purposes. The section on Joe Barton's sex scandal is excessive and should not be our model for handling scandals.  Nblund talk 16:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Heh! "The section on Joe Barton's sex scandal [...] should not be our model for handling scandals"  Of course.  After all, Barton is a Republican, whereas Hill is a Democrat.    XavierItzm (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2019
Katie Hill resigned. Need to change “is a congresswoman.” To “was a congresswoman” 108.195.169.187 (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Still pending, unless you have a source? —  Wylie pedia  @ 11:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2019
Remove use of "allegations" in all text in reference in the "inappropriate relationship"; as Hill has now confirmed (in her own words) an "inappropriate relationship", it is no longer an "allegation". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.213.246.94 (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * A tweet is not a source, even if from the article subject. Also, the chronology of the matter should retain the term, regardless. The section heading can change when the matter is fully handled, as suggested above (#2). —  Wylie pedia  @ 13:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We have Template:Cite tweet for such situations. But, just because she says it's inappropriate doesn't mean it is. Maybe she's being too hard on herself and internalizing misogynistic strictures that tell her she's not allowed to do whatever she wants with her body. Kind of like when women turn religious and say, "I'm a murderer because I had an abortion"; we wouldn't put in the article that she was guilty of murder in such a scenario. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * She admitted to one and not the other. The alleged affair with a congressional staffer was the one that she was being investigated over.  Nblund talk 16:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Revenge porn
I restored this to the lead--sorry --because it seems relevant and well-sourced to me; I looked over the talk page to see if this had been discussed, but I don't see it. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , check out the very end of – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ^That was the discussion I was referencing. That may get lost in the thread, so I'm fine with starting a new discussion here. I was modeling the lead on this, and coverage elsewhere, which tends to emphasize the ethics probe first. I'm not necessarily averse to mentioning the nude photos in the lead, but I think calling them "blackmail" is just inaccurate, and "revenge porn" is a bit of a hazy neologism.  Nblund talk 02:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Aha--thanks. But what I don't see there is a consensus on excluding the revenge bit. BTW I do not agree that those terms are just legal terms--they are, but they are more than that, and they are verified all over the media, so I don't see a good reason not to include them. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nblund, sorry, but, , , , , and an article from the WP that I don't have access to. Doesn't seem very hazy. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There wasn't one, but there was an effort to get a discussion going, which is more than can be said for every other iteration of that sentence in the lead. I haven't seen the term "blackmail" used, and I really don't see how that would apply. I'm not disputing whether or not the photos were revenge porn, but I'm not sure whether readers will know what that is, and I'm not sure whether it should be seen as the central reason for her resignation since the early coverage has mostly placed the investigation at the forefront. Nblund talk 02:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I took the part about blackmail out. There's no evidence of blackmail. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Thanks. BTW I find the evolution of the coverage of this case to be really interesting, as an insight into how things go these days. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Whereas Hill has vowed to fight in future against revenge porn, no court nor investigation has determined she has been the victim of revenge porn. Allegations of revenge porn against individuals such as her husband violate WP:BLP and should not be tolerated. XavierItzm (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Her nude photos were published without her consent. That is revenge porn. Banana Republic (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * regarding this, does the source say "compromising"? I don't think it does, and I actually think that's less neutral than any option so far.  Nblund talk 19:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It does not say compromising. I thought that was a nice compromise.  The source says "nude."  So there you are. XavierItzm (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's another compromise source."the emergence of compromising photos of the lawmaker" ref. XavierItzm (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Nude" seems preferable to "compromising". The latter is euphemistic and can imply wrondoing. New York Times, and the Guardian, Bloomberg have described explicit photos as "explicit". As I said above, I'm not averse to just saying "nude" but, I think "explicit" or "intimate" do a better job of characterizing the nature of the photos in a short sentence. responding here to keep everything in the same place. Several sources note that the photos were published without her consent: WaPo, Vox, NBC etc. I have a hard  time seeing a good reason to leave this out given the nature of the story.  Nblund talk 22:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the current citation that supports the sentence, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/us/politics/katie-hill-revenge-porn.html, never says "explicit". Two current sources, however, say "compromising."  You would have to delete the current sources and replace with those of your choice. XavierItzm (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So far, the sources in the article appear to support "nude" or "compromising." XavierItzm (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Compromising" is ridiculous. That could mean anything. And I'm not arguing as to whether or not the release was "unconsented to" or unauthorized -- that is obvious. And that is the point. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia one goes by the sources, yes? So, are the Associated Press, U.S. News and World Report, and Time all "ridiculous", as you say? XavierItzm (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * @XavierItzm Okay, but you acknowledge that not all sources say "compromising", right? That seems like the worst of all options, and you haven't really given a reason to prefer it.
 * @Wikieditor19920: maybe you're right, but I don't think it is obvious, and I don't see any harm in leaving it in. Nblund talk 16:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The wording that is used throughout a several page article does not need to mirror what we use for the two-paragraph lead. "Compromising" is imprecise and could lead readers to assume that the photos were something other than what they were -- nude photos. They certainly were compromising, but that alone is an inadequate descriptor. WP:BLP requires we be precise in our language, and I do not see any general support for "compromising" here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You say "They certainly were compromising" but reject its use. You say this word is "imprecise".  I say it is a precise word and since the photos are compromising, it is a perfect word to use. XavierItzm (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Has she officially resigned, or not?
We have been carefully not listing her as "former," because we didn't see any report of an official letter or an effective date. I still haven't. Her congressional webpage is still live. But news organizations are saying she resigned on "Sunday" (the 27th), and dozens of people are already filing paperwork to run in the special election (which has not yet been announced). We already have an article about the presumed special election, 2020 California's 25th congressional district special election. That article says she resigned on the 27th. So I think we should change this article to "former" and "27th," even though I have yet to see anything more formal than her tweet on the 27th, which does not say when her resignation is effective. Do the rest of you agree? -- MelanieN (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No. This POLITICO piece which many other sources rely on says "Hill did not specify a resignation date in her letter but multiple people with knowledge of her plans said she could step aside as soon as Nov. 1." Let's wait for sources saying that's officially happened. Jonathunder (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with . If her house.gov page is still up, that probably means she still in the House. I made an erroneous assumption that if someone submits a resignation letter with no date, that means it's effective immediately. We should consider her still an incumbent. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, you are right. I found this at Roll Call which says "it is unclear when she will resign". I gather that when people file papers to run for her seat, they are filing papers for the REGULAR election in November 2020. No special election has been called yet, since her resignation has not yet taken effect. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Final day is tomorrow. See article. XavierItzm (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Clerk's office now says she resigned on Nov. 3. New official directory concurs. http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/olm-116.pdf 73.192.216.162 (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

#Metoo
Given the difference in power and age between Hill and her campaign staffer (she was 22 and fresh out of college when the relationship started) there has already been a few articles about Hill’s situation and #metoo.

It would seem relevant to include it, or at least a short snippet.

What does everyone think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.107.14.5 (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What would you propose to say? And what sources are available? They have to be Reliable Sources as Wikipedia defines it - not tabloids, not partisan opinion pieces. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Please Fix
So sorry, I normally fix grammatical and spelling errors when I'm reading articles, but I note that this one is protected. There is an error in Section 3.4 that I want to bring to someone's attention who is able to edit it (italics added):

"In her last speech before Congress on October 31, 2019, Hill said the there was a 'double standard'..."

My apologies again. It's my OCD LOL! skatoulaki (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks for pointing it out! PackMecEng (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Given that she's no longer in Congress or planning to run next year, probably someone can reduce the amount of protection on the page, since I doubt there's going to be so much of a motive to edit-war over the page for partisan purposes. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The protection will expire in a few weeks. Given the amount of BLP violation that was occurring on this page, we should keep the protection for now and see what happens when it expires. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course you agree, you've demonstated an unambiguous willingness to engage in blatantly partisan editorship on this article.

Article remains highly partisan
Very disappointed in the partisan behavior of editors regarding this page. The sex scandal issue at play is identical to that of Joe Barton, except that in the case of Katie Hill it involves an additional abuse of power aspect (i.e. with a staffer). In Barton's casse, he receives an entire top-level section entitled "sex scandal". However, editors here dismiss the clear precedent provided by the Barton article structure by characterizing it as "excessive", while offering no further solution. If editors believe the Barton article - which is as direct a precedent as can be imagined - to be excessive, they should demonstrate their commitment to fair coverage by resolving those issues before arbitrarily creating new standards in this article.

Additional comments: - The initial RedState article is falsely quoted. The inital RedState article emphasizess only the sex scandal with the junior female staffer, not the campaign finance manager. Hill did not attempt to deny the sex scandal with the junior female staffer, only with the campaign finance manager. The RedState article only references Graham Hill at its halfway point, and only then in the context of the relationship with the junior female staffer. Therefore the first paragraph of the "resignation" section presents a false and strawmanned argument, enabling Hill's denial of the sex scandal with the campaign finance manager to follow and set the tone for the section. - Numerous provocative texts from Barton are included in his article. Therefore provocative texts from Hill should be included in hers. - Reaction by Graham Kelly (one of the 2 alleged sex scandal partners) should be included.

There are many more areas for improving this article to a point of non-partisanship but these should be a good start. Looking forward to collaborating with non-activist editors (i.e. not those who produced the current partisan dumpster fire of an article) on these improvements.

Unfortunately, as this issue is already mostly out of the news, this article will have already had most its most significant impact on those seeking relevant knowledge. As the very first paragraph contains partisan falsehoods via dishonest emphasis (as detailed above), the partisan editors implicated likely have already accomplished most of their goals. A shame, as incidents like this are what continues to undermine Wikipedia's hopes for a reputation of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.213.246.94 (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Joe Barton is not protected so you're welcome to try and improve it directly. That said, AFAICT these scandals actually have a number of key differences you've ignored. And I'm not referring to one being a Republican and one a Democrat nor one a man nor one a woman. You claimed above that Joe Barton resigned but AFAICT this isn't what happened. Our article suggests he simply chose not to seek reelection in response and stayed in congress for over a year more. (As I understand it, terms for the US house are only 2 years so he effectively stayed for over half of that term after the scandal.) This seems to have caused some perhaps understandable controversy, as per our article. It also gave a lot of time for the controversy to get attention. (Your "out of the news" seems particularly relevant here.) Katie Hill per this article seems to have resigned within about 2 weeks. The time line of their respective scandals also seems to have likewise been different since it seems that Barton's was more of a slow burn with 2 significant chunks of new information (new women) coming out over time, whereas it sounds like the info for Hill basically came out in one chunk. Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn’t the article address recent alleged statements by a former staffer, discussed by Politico? https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/07/anonymous-former-katie-hill-staff-film-adaptation-427038 2600:8805:9100:418:6996:5F26:BD51:DCED (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox picture
Which info box picture should we use? PackMecEng (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I prefer using official portraits whenever possible. For example Bill Clinton & Barack Obama. PackMecEng (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the official portrait is a better photo (based mostly on the angle) and the age difference of the photos is negligible. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn’t there be something here about the alleged statements of her former staffers? https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/07/anonymous-former-katie-hill-staff-film-adaptation-427038 2600:8805:9100:418:6996:5F26:BD51:DCED (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 October 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

– With respect to the Paralympic silver medalist, usage (96.7% of |Katie_Hill_(basketball)|Katie_Rain_Hill|Katie_Hill all-time pageviews, or 96.4% |Katie_Hill_(basketball)|Katie_Rain_Hill|Katie_Hill since Jan 2022) suggests that the former congressperson is the primary topic. Hameltion (talk &#124; contribs) 20:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Katie Hill (politician) → Katie Hill
 * Katie Hill → Katie Hill (disambiguation)
 * Support per nom. Station1 (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - meets PT1 as demonstrated by nom, and almost certainly PT2 (long-term significance). estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator. Killuminator (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per above. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)