Talk:Jill Hazelbaker

Deleting this article benefits Hazelbaker, but not Wikipedia or the people who use it

Jill Hazelbaker is a notable public figure in recent news stories. I recommend a Google News search for her name, which turns up 32 recent entries where reporters are quoting her directly and identifying her as the chief "spokesperson" or "press secretary" of presidential candidate John McCain. If she was at one time a "mid-level" staffer, she is no longer at that level now. I believe that Wikipedia should keep its ongoing article of her record so far, embarassing as some parts of that record might be. Don't let this information be "vanished" from Wikipedia. betsythedevine 10:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The AfD template clearly states that "Unregistered users should visit Talk:Jill Hazelbaker and leave a detailed rationale for deletion, otherwise this template will be removed." In fact, the unregistered user who nominated this article for deletion has not offered any rationale. betsythedevine 20:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

A bit worried about the coverage of the astroturfing incident

Given that no definitive evidence ever emerged, I'm bothered that covering allegations in such detail give undue weight to the incident, and make it appear as if the subject is guilty; this incident is already covered in United States Senate election in New Jersey, 2006. It looks as if we are singling Ms Hazelbaker out as a suspect without proof (indeed, use of a common IP address in an office environment doesn't even begin to look like proof). In a BLP, this is not desirable. RayAYang (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not "we" who are singling out Ms Hazelbaker but all the contemporaneous media accounts of the incident. {[WP:BLP]] does not require sanitizing biographies to minimize events where the subject got lots of real press coverage. I don't think the incident gets undue coverage considering the length of this biography. betsythedevine (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Claim there is no "further" evidence beyond IP address

I just removed this claim from the body of the bio because I think it is inaccurate. 1) The goal of the concern-troll sockpuppets -- to promote Kean's candidacy by attacking Menendez for "corruption" (charges that were never substantiated) -- was the goal of many public statements by Hazelbaker on behalf of the Kean campaign. 2) The New York Times [1] noted that one sockpuppet post reflected inside information known only to Hazelbaker and one reporter. (See also [2].) 3) It is also intriguing that the same IP defended and praised Hazelbaker herself. "Also, you guys are upset about the attacks on Menendez, but isn't it a little bit hypocritical to then attack his press secretary. Not to mention, Kean is winnng so she must be doing something right." [3] Kean's press secretary was, of course, Jill Hazelbaker. In my opinion, this material reflects "further" evidence beyond a shared IP. betsythedevine (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. My edit was actually just a style cleanup of the original phrasing, which was "no evidence ever surfaced definitively linking Hazelbaker herself to the specific emails in question, aside from the fact that they were sent from the Kean's campaign computer she had herself used to send other emails."

I was trying to slim it down, a la Strunk and White. Perhaps I should not have chopped the word "definitive." "Intriguing" doesn't constitute "evidence" so much as "suggestive," in the same way that the plural of anecdote is not data. The NYT article actually says that the blogger claimed only Hazelbaker and the reporter would have access to that information; the campaign claimed differently. On the other hand, it is revealed in the NYT article that, most probably, the entire campaign was under one IP address, which further dilutes any hypothesis that Hazelbaker was personally involved. I think we could probably leave it the way you have it here ... RayAYang (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, and I'm glad you're ok with the current wording. Maybe I should also clarify that I think items 1, 2, and 3 are not definitive evidence but rather circumstantial evidence, which (to quote Wikipedia) "is a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown." betsythedevine (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Proper sourcing of material/external link guidlines

From WP:EL:

In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies. Awotter (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles need to have balance

This article has been getting a lot of attention from a new editor. It seems to me that an inappropriately heavy stress is being put on material from one local-kid-makes-good puff-piece on OregonLive -- now referenced at six different spots in the bio. The OregonLive article is too flimsy to bear so much weight, and I intend to try to restore some balance.

Today this editor is trying to remove information about a New Jersey scandal that got national press exposure of Hazelbaker's name well before she joined McCain's 2008 team. My concern is with the article, not with the behavior or motivation of other editors. This article needs to provide accurate and balanced info from multiple good sources. It is especially important that Hazelbaker's current prominence in the current election should not be allowed to disappear her earlier activities and reputation. betsythedevine (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Betsy and other editors -- I took a look at the edits in question. My sense is that the OregonLive article is a good profile (and, let's face it, biographies of political operatives with good points about them are much harder to come by than derogatory material), but it does have a slant that we should try to remove when we bring information in from it. As for specific edits, I don't think the author was trying to remove material so much as reflecting a legitimate difference of opinion on the relative weight we should give to different episodes of Ms. Hazelbaker's life in the article summary (he left the section on the NJ scandal itself untouched).

Just as, for a typical academic, we should expect achievements and controversies from graduate school to fade in relative importance as a greater body of work is accumulated, so too with Ms. Hazelbaker, who has clearly moved up in the world from being Kean's press secretary. It isn't unreasonable to ask whether the prominence given the Kean business in the summary no longer has the same significance to her life and the public's knowledge of her. Her role in shaping McCain's message is, unquestionably, the greatest achievement of her career so far, so I think a greater elaboration of her role as national communications director in the summary section is probably warranted.

To put biographies of living persons in the category "American political scandals" is problematic to begin with, unless we mean it as a catch-all category for "everybody in American politics who has not been completely squeaky clean." I suppose we could use it as a category for people principally associated with scandals and articles about scandals themselves, but to go further would run into serious POV issues. Of course, the category isn't currently being used that way; it appears to be rather random and scattershot. That's my 2 cents, for what it's worth. RayAYang (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

RayAYang is correct: I am not trying to remove any cited material from the article. The last sentence of the introduction is not a cited statement, but rather a judgment on what is most relevant to the overall life of Jill Hazelbaker. Given her very important and widely reported role on the McCain campaign, it is clear that, while her job with the Tom Kean Campaign is not completely irrelevant to her life, it does play a big enough role to warrant a statement in the introduction. I am not interested in altering the entire section on that part of her career. I just believe that it does not belong in the short introduction. I will delete it, and welcome further discussion from Betsythedevine. On another note, the article from the Oregonian, the oldest continuously published newspaper on the U.S. West Coast and the largest newspaper in Pacific Northwest, is anything but flimsy. It is well researched and full of relevant, cited information on Hazelbaker. itsthehair 22:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO the NJ scandal is so relevant that it belongs in the intro to her bio. For more than a (recent) year it was the major source of news mention of Hazelbaker. If I can figure out how to do it from the wretched hotel internet connection I have now, I will solicit a Wikipedia:Request for Comment to get less-involved editors to participate. If I should fail, I encourage "hair" or Ray to start the same process; betsythedevine (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the "American political scandals" category. This category should be reserved for articles on scandals or the campaigns connected to them. It would therefore be appropriate to put the category on the article United States Senate election in New Jersey, 2006, but not on actual persons. It is hard to believe that Hazelbaker ranks with other articles in that category, including Jack Abramoff and Watergate.itsthehair 23:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.38.195 (talk)

You say, "This category should be reserved for articles on scandals or the campaigns connected to them" -- but that is not how the category is in fact used. There are almost 300 articles in the American political scandals category, most for people not campaigns, most for people less multifarious than Jack Abramoff. Bill Clinton for example is a living person known for a lot of things more important than Monicagate, yet he is in that category. I agree the tag belongs on the article United States Senate election in New Jersey, 2006. betsythedevine (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI: I noticed as well the issues with the category "American political scandals" and am attempting to remedy the problem by establishing some inclusion criteria along the lines suggested. I hope that eventually this will remove articles like Bill Clinton, Bernard Kerik, etc., from that category -- I don't want the category to become a dumping ground for biographies of every person ever involved in a political scandal, and feel that's not what categories should be about. People interested are invited to hash this out at Category talk:American political scandals.RayAYang (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on NJ scandal mentions of McCain press secretary Jill Hazelbaker

Jill Hazelbaker is now a prominent spokesperson for John McCain. When her bio was first created, however, she was primarily known for her involvement in a 2006 campaign scandal involving Republican Senate candidate Tom Kean...and Wikipedia. Should this 2006 scandal be included or not in the summary of the Hazelbaker bio? Involved editors disagree; what is the opinion of outside editors? betsythedevine (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment/Yes I realize my earlier comments were a bit unclear on this particular point; I was pointing out that User:Itsthehair was not trying to remove information from the article. I think that while her role with the McCain campaign is her most prominent achievement to date, Jill Hazelbaker's involvement with the Kean campaign is still significant enough to get a mention in the introduction section of her bio. After all, it was a scandal of some prominence, and the first time she came to public notice as well, and thus of interest to our readers. RayAYang (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• It is still unfair to credit Hazelbaker's entire rise to public attention to her association with one alleged political scandal on a former campaign. She was involved in several other campaigns before 2006. Also, I argued that her name "came to public attention" during the 2006 campaign not because of the scandal, but by her simply being a campaign press secretary in a closely-contested election that garnered national attention by itself. I have revised the statement in the introduction, and hopefully this compromise will satisfy all editors. I want to note that I have still not touched the entire section on the 2006 campaign and the alleged scandal in the body of the article. itsthehair 17:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• It would indeed be unfair to "credit Hazelbaker's entire rise to public attention" to the scandal. The summary-including-brief-mention-of-scandal does not do this. More space and more prominent space is given to her role in John McCain's campaign. The summary as you have edited it is quite misleading. In 2006, Hazelbaker was a press secretary who got news mentions, now and again, for giving isolated press quotes promoting her boss. How many press secretaries for unsuccessful 2006 Senate candidates were getting similar press mentions now and again? Would you say that the names of those press secretaries too "came to public attention" in the 2006 campaign? Hazelbaker got national press coverage only after the scandal surfaced. The consensus so far is that the scandal belongs in the bio summary. betsythedevine (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• If you want me to, I will go through old news articles to prove that Hazelbaker was frequently mentioned in national newspapers such as the New York Times before and after this scandal because of her prominent role in the campaign. If you read the article on the 2006 New Jersey Senate campaign, you would see that Tom Kean's campaign gained national headlines because it was an extremely close race and was the Republican's best bet that year to gain a previously-blue seat in the Senate. The scandal, in fact, was most widely reported on not in national newspapers (I believe it was mentioned in the New York Times online political blog once), but on local left-leaning New Jersey blogs. Hazelbaker was mentioned more often in the national media for her role as the spokesperson, not as someone associated with this scandal. I have revised back the statement, and again have not touched the body section. I am in no way trying to hide details of the event, but I am again asserting that this event does not warrant a place in the brief article summary. --Itsthehair (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• You can easily use the archive search function on the NYT website, but clip-quote attributions don't make a person notable. The fact that the scandal was widely taken up by "left-leaning" blogs is predictable but does not make it less notable. Please stop unilaterally reverting this bio summary when both RayAYang and i, the only two other editors taking an interest, agree that the well-known scandal belongs in there. Edit-warring and in particular WP:3RR are not good wikipedia practice. betsythedevine (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• The Hazelbaker-IP-address scandal was in fact syndicated by both AP ("Kean campaign denies posting blog comments") and UPI ("GOP staffer accused of blog attacks", which is remarkable considering how complex the story is. The New York Times had at least 2 stories, one of these a blog. The Star Ledger's story gets quoted by many others, though it's now offline as are many others. You can see photocopies of some as of Sept. 29, 2006 here: [4] Oops just found one more stlll online: [http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/11/06/061106ta_talk_paumgarten New Yorker. betsythedevine (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Again, I am not refuting the fact that the scandal warrants a significant place in the article - it is discussed in detail over multiple paragraphs in the body of this article. It is simply repetitive to detail the controversy again in the introduction. --Itsthehair (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jill Hazelbaker. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20080204/ai_n21225650/pg_2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080728030621/http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/18/1206398.aspx to http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/18/1206398.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080903041049/http://www.wral.com/news/political/story/3453209/ to http://www.wral.com/news/political/story/3453209/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090222045123/http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2009/02/bloomberg-hires-mccain-08-spok.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2009/02/bloomberg-hires-mccain-08-spok.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jill Hazelbaker. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20071005%2FNEWS09%2F710050396%2F-1%2FENT06
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081109023752/http://men.style.com/gq/features/campaign08 to http://men.style.com/gq/features/campaign08

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)