Talk:Steve Schmidt

Verizon connection
Just a minor point: how is it possible that his father worked for Verizon when Schmidt was growing up, when Verizon didn't exist pre-2000? --160.94.142.71 (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Scherer remark edit
The following edit was recently made to the article. As far as I can see, it is a derogatory remark about Schmidt, provided without suitable context or any semblance of balance, and thus a violation of neutral point of view policy. I have reproduced it below for everybody's viewing. RayAYang (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest you reread WP:ASF. The source itself does not need to be neutral. Indeed, as a general rule we do not assume that all but the most authoritative sources are anywhere near neutral or comprehensive. It is our simple, straightforward and truthful representation of what the sources say that makes the article neutral. The only potential issue with the above material (i.e. the entire sentence I added and you removed) is if you argue that it adds undue weight to the article. To which I'd respond that Schmidt's senior position in the McCain campaign is of high relevance in this article and the according coverage he receives in high-profile news outlets is most certainly worthy of inclusion. However, I agree that the relatively bare sentence is not particularly useful. But the way to go about it is not to remove it but instead to expand on his work with the campaign. And if the majority of media response to his contributions is negative, we will neutrally report just that, and not clean up his article and "free it" from easily verifiable "derogatory remarks". Several available sources clearly attribute the change of the campaign's overall tone with Schmidt taking over the campaign as Operative Chief. The deliberate employment of untruthful statements, which has been noted as a trademark of Schmidt's campaign work in 2004 as well, has drawn increasing criticism even from some Republicans and conservative commentators. All of that is verifiable, relevant to the article about Schmidt, and it should be included. Everyme 23:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for agreeing that the bare sentence is not helpful. You have offered no useful reply to my charge that the bare sentence, as it is, is a biased contextless derogatory remark on a biography of a living person. Violations include, but are not limited to, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, as well as basic questions of style and taste. You have asserted a "fact" in a most unhelpful manner.
 * If you wish to contribute constructively to this article in a helpful manner, you are welcome to write about the change in the McCain campaign following Steve Schmidt's takeover; I have been a little too busy of late to expand on this article as I had originally hoped.
 * However, we are now at the WP:3RR threshold. Please have the decency to either remove or expand on your edit; if this is not settled soon, I will take this to the BLP noticeboard. RayAYang (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can only presume you are deliberately ignoring the extensive point I've made explaining how the sentence is not a derogatory remark. In addition to brushing up on actual BLP violations, I also strongly recommend rereading WP:OWN. And the lawyering tone is not exactly helping your cause. Everyme 00:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I've just stumbled onto this article (and for the record, I have no idea who this guy is - in fact he's from a completely different country), but it is clear that this is not a violation of the biographies of living persons policy or the neutral point of view policy. The point of WP:BLP is to avoid slandering a subject, or invading their privacy - not to prevent any negative coverage (otherwise this would not be an encyclopaedia, but an advertisement). Given that this comment has come from a reputable publication, is well sourced as well as qualifying it as an "opinion piece", there is no reason to remove this piece, from my perspective. :) – Toon (talk)  00:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
This is a tough one. The negative-ness is not an issue. To quote from WP:BLP If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Clearly, the allegations are from notable and well-documented reliable sources. Are they relevant though? Ideally, relevance should be obvious from the context and it is true that the quotes are not set in an appropriate context. Ideally, the article should describe his campaign style and then provide the quotations as support, provided the act of contextualizing does not wander into WP:OR. That said, the article is about a notable person much in the news these days and, given the stubbiness of the article itself, the quotations are informative and do provide a service to the reader (WP:RF). A context would be nice but, on the balance, the Scherer quotation can be kept. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 14:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

more worthwhile sources










Everyme 07:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sexual behavior
I don't think it's necessary to include Schmidt's past sexual behaviors. What a man does in the privacy of his bedroom or bathhouse is private. Talking about it is just an effort to attack his pro-homosexual agenda. 68.0.119.139 (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Stevie Boy's Family
In Game Change, it references Stevie Boy's wife. Was that made up bollox by the filmmakers? If not, you people need something in the wiki about this guy's old lady, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Mercury Public Affairs
Is there really no wikipedia entry for Mercury Public Affairs? Are there entries for other political consulting firms? Get with it. We need to know who these people are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.83.15 (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Steve Schmidt. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303100712/http://courts.ky.gov/supremecourt/justices/scott.htm to http://courts.ky.gov/supremecourt/justices/scott.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Photo problem
Two different accounts have added the same photo using different file names, each having claimed it as their "own work". This means that either the two accounts are the same person (and it's a violation of Wikipedia rules to do that to appear to be multiple editors on the same article) or (at least) one of them is lying about its being their own work, or it's the oddest of beasts, a cooperative photograph. I am undoing the addition and asking that the images be removed since we cannot tell which, if either, claim is correct. Additionally, this new photo is not as good as the prior photo, which showed him larger, more clearly, and looking less lost. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Footnote 47
The link for Footnote 47 needs to be fixed. It currently takes you to a 404 error, indicating that the link does not exist. I found the correct link, but I do t trust myself to edit the link. If someone can help with this, the link is:

https://www.newsweek.com/david-frum-hbos-game-change-charts-sarah-palins-revenge-63687

Kdpeffley (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality notice
An NPOV notice was added by User:Moncrief last month. Can someone explain why the article still has this notice or provide any sort of justification for it? Nweil (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Political Affiliation
The article suggests that Schmidt is a member of the far-right Independent American Party, but this is clearly not true: Schmidt has made it clear he is a Democrat, and when asked why he's listed as a member of the IAP, he has said he has no idea how that happened.

The answer is obvious: voters who wish to change their political affiliation to "Independent" (as Schmidt did during his transition from Republican to Democrat) sometimes mistakenly select the party with "Independent" in its name. Many voters have made this mistake, as has been previously documented. The New York Post (which to my mind is an unreliable tabloid) wants to make it look like Schmidt is lying about his political affiliation, but that's a disingenuous take: the label is clearly an error.

Based on these considerations, I am going to modify this section to reflect the fact that Schmidt has refuted the insinuation that he is a member of the IAP. Chillowack (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Lincoln Project
I just saw a post about how Forest Gump enlisted for the Vietnam War. Then Secretary McNamara had setup Project 100,000. We need to let people know what requirements are to become a Congress person? Are there any after George Santos lied about everything? 107.182.38.133 (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Schmidt's sister's partner's sexuality
in this edit, you inserted a claim that Schmidt's sister's lifepartner is lesbian.That's not actually in the source. (Heck, we don't even have an actual statement that said partner is female, although it's strongly implied.) There is reasonable chance that the partner is bisexual rather than lesbian. I think the sourced information would be carried fine by referring to his sister, rather than her partner, as lesbian, which is sourced. I ask that you consider this and rework your edit as appropriate. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)