Talk:Lisa Graham Keegan

Untitled
The WikiProjectArizona was formed to foster better articles on the U.S. state ofArizona with a spirit of cooperation. WikiProjectArizona and its subpages contain suggestions on formatting and layout of articles, which can be discussed at the project's talk page. To participate, simply add your name at the participant’s section. It is intended to pull together interested and knowledgeable editors to improve all articles about Arizona. Thus, it covers the creation and editing of articles related to the U.S. State Arizona, its cities, counties, geography, transportation, culture, people, history and traditions. The aim is to build a broad and deep collection of solid articles about Arizona and Arizonans. All editors are welcome. Ways you can join in include the following: helping create the templates necessary for the project; reading over articles and giving your suggestions in the article's talk pages; copyediting for grammar and clarify; adding photos; reverting vandalism; citing sources; fact checking; minor or major research and contributions; advertising the project by posting the WikiProject template in relevant talk pages.12.2.200.10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC).

For how to complain to the Wikimedia Foundation, see here and below.Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.42.184.102 (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This is absolutely disgusting! This is not an encyclopedia article--it's a propaganda piece. Why not attach a resume? Where is the mention of any controversies that Ms. Keegan repeatedly landed herself in because of being such a partisan hack? Scamming money from the Dept of Education through sham organizations? The organizations that she supposedly led are not even mentioned! Was this put out by her publicist? Or some rat at the AEI? Can someone PLEASE fix this!!!

Alex.deWitte (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you talking about? What scam?  Which organizations are not mentioned?  If you have sourced and notable information about her that is not in the article, why don't you put it in, instead of mystifying everyone with dark suggestions?  -- Zsero (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's my "dark suggestion:" how about stop using YouTube sources and the National Review as credible sources? Please note WP:NPOV and words to watch, because this article is full of it. Manual of Style (lead section) may be helpful as well. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭  (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For an article about a woman who has worked closely with Republican politicians, "conservative" seems to be the dirty word here. Also, while the article previously said her works have been published by the NYT, I found that the term "published" has been used very loosely. http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/11/opinion/l-closed-charter-schools-006190.html This is the only article that seemed to have been written by her. Clearly merits a mention in an encyclopedia article. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭  (talk) 05:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are photos being deleted? 156.42.184.101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC).


 * Someone claimed one was public domain and that the other belonged to the user. They were clearly promotional pictures. The same pictures could be found on Keegan's websites. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭  (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In either case it appears that the rights have been released and they were in the public domain. Obviously Saranghae honey has very strong personal issues with this person but that is not a reason to delete photos. If the photos are being used on other sites, it probably is because the were obtained in the public domain. 156.42.184.101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC).


 * Read what public domain is before attacking me. If my requests for speedy deletion were in error, they would not have been deleted. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭  (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, if you want to be more subtle about your views towards Keegan, I would suggest stop editing from the Maricopa County Government's server. I guess that would explain this as well. If you are not familiar with Wikipedia's manual of style or its policies on neutrality, don't be so quick to attack me, and word your questions constructively. Thanks.  мirаgeinred سَراب ٭  (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Lisa Graham Keegan. 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/20080922002554/http://archives.cnn.com:80/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/19/bush.cabinet/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/19/bush.cabinet/index.html

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 10:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Bold books
Is there a reason why the name of her book is formatted in bold?--Mr. Guye (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)