Talk:Vicki Iseman

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment Drives

Want to help write or improve biographies? Check out WikiProject Biography Tips for writing better articles. —Yamara ✉ 13:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Page deletion

I disagree with the rapid deletion of this page. I was just writing on this talk page when that happened. Speedy deletion was too fast. This article might have a regular article for deletion candidate. I fail to see how the New York Times is an improper or poor source. Failureofafriend (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The article did need some additional information, but the stated reason for deletion that Iseman is not notable enough is suspect. Someone on the front page of NewYorkTimes.com and Drudge Report has a pretty good claim to notability. 204.128.230.1 (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added this page for deletion review. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_February_21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Failureofafriend (talk • contribs) 03:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it is proper to put this on the talk page, but I wanted to say that this article is shaping up nicely. I had hoped to contribute to building this article last night prior to deletion, as the previous version I came across was a short stub that didn't meet Wikipedia standards. Unfortunately, the article was deleted in the midst of edit. To all the people who have contributed, good job. Failureofafriend (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the page as it is now, and she is in the news enough to be as noteworthy as anyone else. I'm against deletion Dream Focus (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability

As of this timestamp, subject is notable by any measure. 266 news hits on Google (all in the last five hours). This is going to be like Harriet Myers (stub at sunrise and well-cited B-class by sundown). Let's do it carefully, ladies and gentlemen. BusterD (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Her firm's website has been scrubbed, but archive.org has the page. BusterD (talk) 06:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This entry should be relabelled as McCain Iseman connection or something other than a biography of Vicki Iseman. It currently deals almost exclusively with the recent article from the NYT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.127.7.58 (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Partially agreed. The article should be restricted to items directly associated to Ms. Iseman, not McCain campaign reaction to these allegations.Rockgolf (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor Quibble re. academic degree

While the Alcalde and Fay biography claims that Iseman has a "B.A." in Elementary Education, a quick check of the Indiana University of Pennsylvania's Professional Studies in Education Department's website shows that they call the degree a "B.S.Ed.", which I imagine is to be read as "Bachelor of Science in Education" (a classic example of a tagged degree). I assume that Iseman told Alcalde and Faye that she had "a bachelor's degree in Elementary Education", and they mistakenly assumed it was a B.A., which explains why it says that on her firm profile.

That's why I initially said that she received her B.S.Ed. from IUP. I note that some, no-doubt well-meaning soul switched this to "B.Sc." and then another well-meaning soul switched it to "B.A." I appreciate the attention, but I continue to maintain that I was right the first time, so I'm going to revert it from "B.A." to "B.S.Ed." If someone has a better explanation, though, I'd be willing to reconsider.

Adam_sk (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No quibbling on my part, please. Not while you and new User:Hunter Kahn are doing so well. BusterD (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the diff on the first b-day posting, which I really don't think is very appropriate in any case. BusterD (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"Improper relationship"

I have rephrased the lead because it gave the false impression, by use of quote marks, that the New York Times used the words "improper relationship". I've searched all four pages of the cited article and have found no trace of those words. --TS 15:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

I've removed the controversies section because of undue weight. This threatens to outweigh the entire article, which is a biography. A mention of the McCain fuss is appropriate; six kilobytes of in-depth analysis tacked onto a five-kilobyte article is not. --TS 15:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I felt I had to restore it. There is no way around the fact that her notability is solely due to the McCain allegations. This is not undue weight, when it's the only thing of note about her outside the Beltway. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If her "notability" is solely due to one matter, then we probably should not have an article about her at all. This is precisely what undue weight is about. --TS 16:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, I agree with you here, Tony (indeed, I was falsely accused on my talk page of nominating this for a speedy and/or deleting it myself). Sounds like a case for an AfD. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a very brief section about the allegations with a "main" tag pointing to the article about McCain's presidential campaign. --TS 16:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with this decision. This article has been carefully referenced by very reliable sources. The amount of detail is more appropriate here than on the McCain page which links to this page. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 16:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already remarked on the relative sizes involved--five kilobytes on the person and six kilobytes on the controversy. Moreover it's of far more relevance to the McCain campaign than it is to her. She's a lobbyist, he's an elected public representative. --TS 16:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The McCain-Iseman story has yet to fully unfold, but my initial thoughts are that Vicki Iseman the person is not notable enough to warrant an article. The controversy on the other hand probably does deserve an article. What are people's thoughts on renaming the article to focus on the controversy? --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

To TS: undue weight isn't an issue here -- the controversy involves this much detail. If you would like, you can expand on her bio. To Newsroom: I would support your idea which was my first reaction. Make it about the controversy, redirect her name to the page and add "Main article" in the McCain article. However, one caveat: this may easily go away after this weekend's news cycle and all this effort may then best be reversed. If this does not have legs, then it shouldn't have this kind of detail. ∴ Therefore | talk 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

To TS: to expand, undue weight isn't a function of relative space in the article, but whether the section has more weight than the subject requires or gives one side of a controversy more weight than is proportional to the verified sources. I would aruge that neither is the case here. I do think you have a stronger argument with coatracking which I think Newsroom's suggestion will help address. ∴ Therefore | talk 16:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Biography or Current Event

Someone "in charge" needs to decide whether this is a biography or a current event as the article starts as a biography of someone that without the "current event" element would be non-notable.

I think the article is mostly a rehash of items already on the John McCain page and really either needs to be deleted/merged with the appropriate section of McCain's page or with a page decribing the current event itself. Thanks Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Naturally, no one is "in charge". I believe consensus is evolving (see above section) that this should be about the current event itself rather than a bio. In this case, if consensus does come to this conclusion, Newsroom would do the tinkering. ∴ Therefore | talk 16:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Naturally :o) that's why I used the "". Basically I meant administrators and the more experienced users/contributors. Jasynnash2 (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, I should have figured that. ;) ∴ Therefore | talk 17:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added {{Coatrack}} to this page, as I believe it is exactly the sort of page that WP:COATRACK is intended to discourage. This article is not a biography; it is about an event in John McCain's presidential campaign, although it pretends otherwise. Perhaps it would be best if it were moved to a new title, because I have doubts whether a seriously neutral and sufficiently well-referenced article can be written about the person herself. (This is a typical problem with articles about people known only for political scandals, though not limited to Republicans: see, for example, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey.) Terraxos (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good luck keeping that "coatrack template" on it; people kept deleting the "notable template" I put on it. Too much bias in favor of this article remaining around.--Bedford 17:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is unfair (and arguably uncivil) to characterize editor's efforts as "biased" -- no more than you are "biased" in removal. Let's discuss the issues here and come to some sort of consensus on the direction of the article. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Coatrack

User:Terraxos tagged the article with a coatrack template saying, it was the "very definition" of a coatrack. I disagree. One element of a coatrack article is bias. I don't see the bias in the article which uses sources that, unlike WP:COATRACK's examples, are not "crackpot" references. It is reliably sourced and does provide denials. Nor is this a conspiracy theory, fringe topic, fact picking, etc.

On the other hand, I do believe the article should be renamed as the salient subject here is the controversy and not the bio. See above discussions. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 18:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COATRACK#"But it's true!":

The coats hanging from the rack hide the rack — the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject. Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject.

The facts as we are aware of them point to no improper conduct by Ms Iseman at all. She seems to have been unfortunate enough to become close to a married senator while working as a lobbyist, causing his aides to express qualms about his fitness to run for high office. Putting a huge section into the article overbalances her blameless history by associating it with a possible misjudgement by a third party. --TS 18:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, the important issue in WP:COATRACK is bias. However, I agree with your statement of facts (but I'll leave it to the sources to judge her culpability). I encourage, because I believe there is consensus, that a) this article should be renamed (to what needs to be discussed), b) Vicki Iseman redirected. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 18:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because I'm sure it will come up, I'll raise the third option of merging the relevant content to the JMC 2008 campaign article. Advantage, the way I see it: It's good to have stories like these in one place, especially when they derive so much of their notability from the parent article. Disadvantages: At first glance, it seems there's a lot of material

After thinking about it some, I'd favor this option. At this point, the story has a big "so what" factor to it, in that it raises a couple of thinly sourced allegations and rehashes a bunch of old stuff. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is already covered in both the McCain and the 2008 campaign article although with much less detail. There is *some* meat to her bio, Personal and Career. If we forked off the bulk of the Controversy into another article that detailed the issue, then we could use the "shortened form" as on the other two pages with a "See Main Article". I intend to strengthen the "Reaction" section to include other's take on this -- that it lacks substance, etc. (not our take, but RSs' takes). However, that said, I'll reiterate: If this controversy dies out, as is very possible, in the next couple of days, then I'd vote for the deletion of this article let alone the forked one. We may want to see how this develops. ∴ Therefore | talk 19:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to make sure I understand your position: You believe that the Paula Jones article should be similarly tagged? ∴ Therefore | talk 18:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Other considerations may apply to other articles. Let's discuss this article on this talk page. --TS 19:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize -- I mistook you for Terraxos's comment above. ∴ Therefore | talk 21:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Within the context of the John McCain election campaign, there is a controversy over his close involvement with a lobbyist. There is no suggestion of her having behaved improperly in any way. My proposed way of dealing with this is to:

1. Note the controversy in the lead, in a single sentence.

2. Include a small stub section with a "main" tag linking to either the appropriate section of John McCain or John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. The stub section should note the existence of a controversy.

Including a duplicate section here is, as outlined in Wikipedia:Coatrack, likely to bias the article about a blameless individual by devoting over half of the biography to a controversy in which she has herself become embroiled. The controversy pertains to the alleged conduct of a third party and can be quite adequately handled in the related article.

It is quite probable, of course, that she wouldn't have a biography in Wikipedia if it weren't for the controversy, but I think the matter of whether the article should be deleted and replaced with a straight redirect can be considered separately from the question of whether in its current form it's a coatrack that can be turned into a proper biography by the methods I've suggested or by other methods. --TS 20:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree with the idea that *we* can determine that she lacks culpability as the main source does allege a romantic entanglement and complains of what its sources consider inappropriate behavior -- both personally and by her allegedly leveraging her relationship by promoting her connection to potential clients. I defer to the sources here.

I agree that that the argument that this has coatrack qualities is arguable -- I was quibbling with your characterization that it was the "very definition". It really doesn't fit any of the examples used at WP:COAT.

There is no question that she wouldn't have an article if not for this issue. Nor would Paula Jones, as you have pointed out. She has become notable. I recommend not that we push all of this detail into either of the McCain articles (which already include much of the info in condensed form) but to place it in its own article. Or wait for several days and see if this dies out. If it does, then delete this article and the McCain articles will evolve accordingly. If not, then I believe forking to its own article with a mention here would be appropriate. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 20:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is veering into tabloid territory. We don't do articles about people who kiss married congresscritters. --TS 20:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Gee, where have you been the last 20 years (Gary Hart onward)? ;) I don't consider the sources tabloids and they raise ethical issues. It is not for us to "determine" this is "tabloid", "gossip", etc. This is a very notable news item. Go to Google News. ∴ Therefore | talk 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is very much for us to determine what is gossip. Wikipedia hasn't been around for twenty years. --TS 20:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is for us to utilize verified reliable sources. I argue that the article uses just that (after I deleted Huffington Post and Drudge references). It is not up to us to characterize the information as "gossip" -- I added in just that kind of characterizations to the article and referenced them. ∴ Therefore | talk 20:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge this with John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

I propose this article be merged with John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. This person is not notable outside of gossip and innuendos about that campaign. Having an article here is not only a coatrack, but contradicts the spirit of WP:BLP. She is notable for one (alleged - and speculated and denied) event, so merge per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT NEWS. Really, this is a bio based on tittle tattle, we don't do that.--Doc^g 20:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Remember (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --TS 20:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree if you mean push all of this text to the campaign article -- already discussed there. Agree to push the detail into an article discussing the controversy while keeping the basic bio info here (presuming she continues to be notable, viz-a-viz Paula Jones). Prefer to wait to see if this even has legs. The sources used are not "tabloid" and it is your characterization that these are gossip and innuendos. ∴ Therefore | talk 20:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources relate to the campaign and are not in any sense "biographical". I'd say a paragraph or two on the campaign article is quite sufficient for the moment. IFFFFFF she becomes longer-term notable, we can consider a biography at a later date, if real biographical sources become available.--Doc^g 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The bio info (Personal and Career) come from sources other than the campaign articles. There is already information in both McCain articles. What you are arguing for is for the deletion of the detail. What I argue for is that the detail is appropriate on its own page. Then make the controversy section on this page a mention with a link to the main article. The biographical material (Personal and Career) does add substance and background that wouldn't be appropriate on the campaign page. ∴ Therefore | talk 20:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. She is notable because of John McCain, but that makes the reader want to know more about her besides John McCain. Brian McNamee is notable only because of Roger Clemens and the Mitchell Report (baseball), so should we merge his article with the Mitchell Report article? John McCain makes her notable, but readers now want to know more about her than just John McCain. That is how I came to this article (or the tiny stub it began as) yesterday. I wanted to know more about the woman that was all over the news aside from the news story.Failureofafriend (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the exception that all of the detail here should be forked to its own article. ∴ Therefore | talk 20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have to object somewhat to the characterization above of this controversy. It was not just one event nor even a romantic liaison alone that forms the basis of her notability. She is also a lobbyist whose clients donated to McCain, and on whose behalf McCain intervened. None of that is gossip or innuendo. It is their past relationship, and allegations about it, that lies at the center of the controversy as it's been reported. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, the entire controversies section, which now comprises 2/3 of the article (is anybody still insisting that this isn't a case of undue weight?) should be merged as soon as possible to the almost identical section in the article about McCain's 2008 candidacy. Whatever remains can be retained here if it merits being kept. A stub section can be created on this article, referring to the appropriate article for details on the controversy. We should not retain this fork much longer. --TS 22:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Should it be merged in the article about the 2008 candidacy or the 2000 candidacy? The reports came out during this election, but are based on events that took place during the 2000 election. Failureofafriend (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I contest still that it isn't a matter of undue weight -- see comments above so I don't repeat them here. Undue weight is not an issue of relative space. Both McCain articles discuss this but with less detail. What exactly are you recommending to be merged? The entire text relating to the controversy? That wouldn't be necessary. Better to put this into its own article, summarize here as done on the two McCain pages, and link to the new article. ∴ Therefore | talk 22:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Better yet, let's wait to see how the story devolves/evolves. If it dies (very possible), then let's go ahead and delete/shrink. ∴ Therefore | talk 22:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We don't keep biographies about in case they become justifiable. We can recreate them later if justification shows itself.--Doc^g 22:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I stand by my opposition to the merger which, in effect, means deletion of this article. The biographical detail is well sourced independently from the campaign articles. The controversies are well sourced and all relate to Iseman as do the balancing statements that call the NYT and Washington Post articles into question. ∴ Therefore | talk 22:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the merge per Therefore and FailureOfAFriend. I came to Wikipedia today looking for an article about Vicki Iseman and I am glad I did not get redirected to a subsection of the John McCain article. Also, I disagree with the argument that Wikipedia articles should meet traditional/paper encyclopedia notoriety standards. If you can get multiple substantive hits for a topic in google, it probably deserves a page in Wikipedia. --Unflappable (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember this isn't a vote, folks. We need strong, policy reasons to justify keeping this article as a biography. Would this article exist, for instance, if not for the McCain controversy? If it would, that's a strong argument in favor of not merging. How much of the article is about the person and how much of it is about something else? If most of it is about the person then that's also a strong reason not to merge. But we do need evidence, too. --TS 23:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone suggested this was a vote. This article would not exist if not for the controversy. So would countless other articles, as suggested in the above discussions. That isn't a sufficient reason. All of this article involves Iseman. Could you please indicate what section of the article doesn't involve Iseman? That would help with my confusion; I just reviewed it and I don't see anything that doesn't involve Iseman, even, if not particularly, the opinions that the original articles should never have been published as it relates to the veracity of the story (something we don't determine, the sources do). What evidence are you referring to? The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.. This article is well sourced, neutrally written and is verifiable. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

TS, how is "this article would not exist if not for the McCain controversy" an argument in favor of not merging, much less a strong one? If "notability comes from only X" were a strong argument, it would apply to merging countless Wikipedia articles. You also seem dismissive about the strong arguments that have been made here. Has the "strong policy reasons to justify keeping this article" standard been applied to all other articles? That's seems to place the burden on justifying not merging. Why? Let me put it this way... by merging the article, what problem would we be solving? By leaving it here, what problem would we be causing? --Unflappable (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed my ambiguous wording. Sorry. On the substantive argument, see WP:BLP1E. At the moment we're talking about a single event and a single hotly disputed journalistic source. We're walking on the edge alongside the New York Times, and that isn't where an encyclopedia should be. --TS 03:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(In response to TS): Thanks, now i understand. I argue that WP:BLP1E isn't applicable here. According to WP:BLP1E:

When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person.

Here they qualify "one event" as "relatively unimportant" or a nominee for election (presumably a relatively unimportant one). That isn't the case here. Further,

Reliable sources may at times be extensive and may expand upon the person's background, but information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself,

There isn't an article on the event itself. If this event becomes enlarged, then an event article is required. The sources have written extensively about Iseman in the context of her activities with McCain. I don't think this is the appropriate forum for debating whether The New York Times is a reliable source -- it is. Same for the Washington Post. This articles does not state that Iseman did such and such -- *that* would be inappropriate. Instead it states that reliable sources reported that Iseman did such and such. That is what we as editors are required to do. This article passes the three tests: Verifiable, attributed reliable sources and written in a neutral tone of voice. We can argue the semantics of a "single event" or "relative importance" but this is a notable person with extensive coverage. You could argue "single event" for Paula Jones or Brian McNamee and many other articles but because these weren't "relatively unimportant", WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. Nor here. ∴ Therefore | talk 04:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd oppose a merge with the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article, on the grounds everything revealed in the last 24 hours (and mentioned in this pagespace) happened eight years ago, and is in no way a part of this presidential campaign, from a strictly enyclopedic view. Subject is a public figure, as someone who is a registered lobbyist. If subject was a man, and no hanky-panky had been insinuated (as the NYT seems to have done in this case), subject would be notable on the merits, as a registered lobbyist with unexplained close connections to a presidential nominee. That's my position. BusterD (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely this should be merged forthwith. No question. Tony has made the case quite clearly. Eusebeus (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad this isn't a vote. And what case is that? Undue weight? Needs evidence? WP:BLP1E? This page wouldn't exits without the controversy? All of these have been countered so miserably that there is "no question" left? What is being recommended is this: since both McCain pages already discuss the matter, this page's expanded discussion should be deleted. What others have suggested is that a new pagespace be created to include the detail. Is that what you are absolutely sure about? ∴ Therefore | talk 17:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that Tony has adequately made the case for BLP vio. This isn't about one incident at all. It's about a pattern of incidents which occurred many years ago. Therefore merging with the campaign article is totally inappropriate. I'd like a refutation of that assertion before I accept a redirect without consensus. BusterD (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

To be clear: editors aren't looking to merge the information from this article into another (both McCain articles include a sub-set of the information) but want to delete this page. Consensus is the backbone of Wikipedia and it has not been reached. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, page consensus for this page was achieved over there. BusterD (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree that it should be merged. Enigma ^msg! 03:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree for now unless a more compelling reason can be given now that we've been through both the DRV and the AfD. At minimum, it would have to be a merge to the controversy article not the main campaign page for this to even be reasonable. Therefore's point that this would be much more of a deletion rather than a genuine merger is also problematic. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge There are tens of thousands of lobbyists who work in Washington DC, and Iseman is no different from any other one of them except for the fact that NYT chose to cook up a story about her and McCain. Now that time has established that the story was a lie, it is time to merge. Her notability is entirely dependent on this story and should therefore be merged. LuxNevada (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Recommendation

A couple observations:

1) I think the fact that Vicki Iseman has been linked to a scandal involving a presidential nominee (as opposed to someone just running in the primaries) means that we're probably going to be hearing a lot more about her in the months to come. 2) I don't think that Wikipedia's Notability standards are really that high - how often does the Thomas S. Kleppe page get visited, yet he's still clearly notable enough to warrant a page. A lot more people will be searching for information on Iseman than on Kleppe in the months (and I daresay, years) to come. 3) I think that there is enough material about Iseman's background before the scandal (four paragraphs - way more than Kleppe's) to warrant keeping her biography page even if a new page on the Controversy is created. Let's recall, that the amount of information we know about Iseman right now is very thin and based on a couple Google searches - more information is sure to be reported in the next couple days. 4) Iseman is still a practicing lobbyist and will likely continue being of interest even after this scandal passes (if it passes). I can see a story ten years from now referencing her.

Therefore, I would recommend creating a "McCain-Iseman Scandal" page, but keeping the Vicki Iseman biography page, though paring down the amount of stuff about the controversy on the biography. It would mean having double articles, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, and this is the sort of thing that will generate enough interest to make it worthwhile.

Adam_sk (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Also arguing in favor of keeping a Vicki Iseman page: Tony Rezko has a biography page, and he's probably going to play about as prominent a role in the campaign as Iseman will. Adam_sk (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That is my position, except we need to avoid the use of the word "scandal". We would have to carefully craft a neutral article title.

Having said that, I'm content with the page as is. It *is* about Iseman. If the facts of this situation grow, then a new page would certainly be warranted. ∴ Therefore | talk 02:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I would endorse and support both the new pagespace and the appropriate removal of the controversies section from this main page. Like Therefore, I hope we can discover a more neutral title before creating the new article. Which means the news media is unlikely to provide anything helpful... BusterD (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo of Vicki Iseman

I have a photo of Vicki Iseman that I took with my own cheap camera in 2002. I posted it into Wikimedia, but I don't know how to add it to the main article. Whomever knows how to do that is free to post the pic into the article. I think you can sesarch for it in Wikimedia. It's an analog image scanned in, so it's not fabulous quality, but I figured I'd make it available, since I didn't see a piture on Vicki's page. Priorart (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Priorart, 2/22/08

What is the image file name? ∴ Therefore | talk 17:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It is Vicki_Iseman_in_2002.jpg Priorart (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Priorart

That photo is awful and extremely unflattering. No disrespect meant, Priorart, but the quality on that photo makes it probably unsuitable for encyclopedic use. FCYTravis (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I figured it might be better than nothing. I could try to scan it in at a higher DPI if it helps. Priorart (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Priorart

Can I recommend that you scan it at a higher DPI and full color (rather than the limited color it seems to be?) In this case, I'd say nothing is better. Bastique | demandez 21:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Name for new pagespace

What suggestions do you have for the name of the new pagespace? ∴ Therefore | talk 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the "controversy" material to John McCain lobbyist controversy. If someone can come up with a better name than that, the page can be moved again. FCYTravis (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That is wonderful -- thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 19:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Grassroots/astroturfing

In the "lobbying activities" section, Ms. Iseman was credited with "grassroots organizing" on behalf of her clients. I have changed this to "grassroots organizing (arguably astroturfing)" - this edit may be somewhat controversial, but I would say that any "grassroots organizing" by a prominent professional lobbyist is, prima facie, an example of astroturfing. If anyone disagrees with that assertion, I would like to discuss it here. Mr. IP (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

it's not for WP to make such assertions. find a RS that says she was astroturfing, and the edit can stand. Anastrophe (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree -- making a prima facie argument could arguably be original research. ∴ Therefore | talk 22:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to leave off the "astroturfing" wording - while I don't think it can be slotted as OR, it will probably be too controversial for inclusion. However, I must remove the "grassroots" characterization of her activities. Considering the history of powerful lobbying and PR firms and "grassroots organizing" - by definition, something they pretend to but are not capable of - I can't accept their own website as a Reliable Source for this characterization. Mr. IP (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You make a valid point. Alternatively, you may say something to the effect, "which her lobby's website characterized as "grassroots efforts". ∴ Therefore | talk 23:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the lobby's website is an allowable RS -- it just should be attributed in the text as such -- see last comment. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to go with that, but I think it might eventually be removed for running to close to "so-called grassroots efforts" or something like that. "Public organizing" is the least tendentious phrase I could think of for the moment. Same idea, but minus the positive (and, IMO, undeserved) connotations of "grassroots". Mr. IP (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Saying "so-called" would be POV. Attributing the contentious statement to the source itself, is neutral. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If the characterization of this organisation as "grassroots" is contentious, the word should be removed rather than making a meal out of the wording given by the company. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

In this case, it would be the editor's choice. However, as a matter of course, attributing contentious information is handled by WP:ASF:

Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense described above. Therefore, where we want to discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion.

Which creates neutrally written articles. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an inconsequential opinion, and making a song and dance about it would constitute undue weight. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

See also

User:72.209.11.186 has twice deleted the "See also" link to John McCain lobbyist controversy with the argument WP:GTL. Here is what WP:SEEALSO actually says:

The "See also" section provides a list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense.

This isn't a prohibition against repeating links that would provide license to an editor to automatically delete the link but instead defers to their editorial judgment. In this case, the "See also" is clearly relevant. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 18:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I restored the "See also" once via revert, but the anon user has a point, the link is a redundancy from one in the opening. Not worth fighting to keep, re NPOV. –Yamara ✉ 19:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope that it doesn't appear that I'm fighting here. I countered the justification of GTL with the actual text of SEEALSO which supports its inclusion since "common sense" would dictate that is a typical and expected "See also". ∴ Therefore | talk 19:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It is already linked in the lead. It is not necessary to link to it again. What is the common sense here? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> I remove the link to the NY Times. This stuff really isn't necessary for this size bio. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The current lead for this article needs work. The lead is supposed to serve a dual role. One, as an introduction to the article below and two, as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The current lead has one sentence that says she was born and serves as a lobbyist. Two sentences follow that talk about the John McCain controversy. The article has two major sections with one having two subsections. Not one word of the article except for a "See Also" link talks about the McCain Controversy.
The current lead does not summarize the article, the first sentence summarizes the article and the next two sentences summarize why she is notable, something that isn't even discussed in the article itself.
I know I will get reverted if I remove the second and third sentences of the lead or if I add material about the controversy into the article, so how do we fix this, or do we even fix it? Jons63 (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely needs repair. Originally, the controversy section was a large part of the article which then was moved to John McCain lobbyist controversy and no attempt was to add a summary statement to the body. I have no problem with you adding in a section about the controversy so that the lede isn't the sole source of the info. ∴ Therefore | talk 02:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the current version of the lead, it contains a ridiculous amount about the McCain stuff, to the extent that it's back to being a coatrack. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The lede needs to be summarized with detail pushed into the body of the article and expanded upon. ∴ Therefore | talk 02:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the extremely longwinded reference in the lead with the single sentence:

She gained national media attention in February, 2008, due to her involvement in the John McCain lobbyist controversy.

All the rest was padding which, placed in the lead, was adding undue weight to that controversy. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It has the benefit of brevity. BusterD (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks better. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability July 2008

Some time has passed since this story broke. Slightly less time has passed since any wikipedia editors took a real interest in this article, so I've decided to be bold and delete all the extraneous bio details in accordance to wiki policy WP:NPF.

I've also proposed that this article be merged into the article about the McCain-Iseman-NYT controversy, but discussion for that should be done over at the thread I've created on that article's talk page. DiggyG (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the merge suggestion was a bad idea.

I think the gutting of this article was poorly advised, and I have reverted it. Geo Swan (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If you choose to make excision(s) based on WP:Biographies of living persons#People who are relatively unknown please offer a specific reasoned justification for each excision here. Geo Swan (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you've really offered much of a rationale for undoing my edits. If you read the wiki policy I cited, I don't see how you can reconcile that policy with the continued presence of Iseman's high school activites etc...DiggyG (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

All the above said, this version of the article has weathered two AfDs and two Deletion Reviews recently, so it's not like this merge concept hasn't been discussed previously. BusterD (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep the 2 discussions separate; I nominated it for merger (and it's already gone through those 3 things you mention), but we've got that conversation going on over on the other talk page. Here, I'm talking about bringing this article in line with wikipedia standards and all I'm saying is that her high school activities have no business being on wikipedia. Even if she were to reappear in the news, her high school information would still be irrelevant. The pages of legitimately famous people don't go into as much useless detail as this page does.DiggyG (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And I'm of the opinions that other stuff exists, both discussions are connected and the removal of sourced positive information which has endured the scrutiny of several deletion processes does little credit to those involved in the processes. One shouldn't ignore the previous discussions on these very subjects. BusterD (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I would respectfully suggest that the previous discussions were inconclusive, and that the failure to reach consensus 4 months ago is not a good enough reason for keeping in place blatantly unencyclopedic information.DiggyG (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And I should apologize if I sound confrontational in this discussion. The latest deletion review was May 4, not four months ago. Again I argue that this has already been hashed out pretty thoroughly in 4 total deletion processes, and I see no compelling reason to revisit this exact subject two months later without referring to all the previous discussion on the subject. BusterD (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the merge request. As was discussed at length at AFD and DRV, merging this article to John McCain lobbyist controversy would result in the elimination of our well-sourced favorable information concerning Vicki Iseman, and the treatment of Iseman only in the context of the controversy in which she was involved, thereby creating the very sort of negatively biased coverage that our biographies of living persons policy is designed to prevent. Blanking all favorable information concerning Vicki Iseman likewise violates our biographies of living persons policy. John254 02:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My main problem with this article is that your "well-sourced favorable information" is not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and even if the merger isn't made, almost all of it should be removed. As for the merger; that discussion is taking place over at Talk:John_McCain_lobbyist_controversy,_February_2008#Merger_proposal, and I would ask you to consider that you may be misapplying the BLP policy which should apply to presenting material that is independently encyclopedic in a balanced manner, and should not be used to justify adding unencyclopedic material. Please respond over on the other talk page. There is no consensus over there, so I'm going to undo your removal of the merge request.DiggyG (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(I didn't notice your last sentence when I wrote my response a moment ago.) I didn't remove the content because it was favourable, I removed it because it is not interesting enough for wikipedia, and as far as I can tell, no one has challenged that point. DiggyG (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

I've responded on the other page, and restored the merge tag. DiggyG (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The result of this discussion was no consensus for move, due to lack of generated interest in the discussion. BusterD (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Defamation Suit

I represent the New York Times Company and I'd like to make you aware of the company's position on this issue. The Times has issued the following statement:

We fully stand behind the article. We continue to believe it to be true and accurate, and that we will prevail. As we said at the time, it was an important piece that raised questions about a presidential contender and the perception that he had been engaged in conflicts of interest.

We plan to defend the suit vigorously and expect to prevail. We have insurance, so there is no material financial exposure; we view defending libel suits as an ordinary cost of doing business.javascript:insertTags('EBohan (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)',,)

The Times' position is already included in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I assert this pagespace meets general notability for BLPs

Numerous citations demonstrate the subject being covered in multiple reliable sources, some of which predate the NY Times story which prompted attention into her lengthy public lobbying career. Unless I see some significant discussion here, I'm removing the January tag in 24 hours. Notability has been under discussion since the original creation of the page, and the last measurement of consensus was concluded with a statement that the existence of this page tends to balance negative connotation which might be drawn from coverage of the controversy on its own page (a page originally created by extraction from this pagespace). Citation has been added after that DRV process, and notability doesn't expire. Unless somebody wants to relist this for AfD, I assert notability. (For my part, I've been a pagewatcher since the first minutes of page creation, and have participated on both sides in previous deletion discussions.) BusterD (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pulling the unnecessary tag. BusterD (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits by ip editor

In the last few days, an ip editor (User:199.47.100.133) has been making changes to the content pf this page, specifically removing mention of her previous lobbying employer from the lede, also removing the mention of the lobbying controversy in the lede. The new editor seems to have reason to believe the subject has created her own lobbying firm, but has failed to show any reliable source which verifies this. Further, each time the blankings have occurred, the underlying code has been disturbed leaving a broken page. I have zero qualms with page improvement, but have tried to start a dialogue on the ip's talk page and again here. Let's discuss how to improve the page without wholesale removal of sources and by following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, specifically those related to WP:Biographies of living persons. BusterD (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

A reminder that this subject is a living person and new insertion must meet BLP standards for inclusion

I saw and reverted an insertion this morning and then saw another reverted by another admin I'd notified of my first revert. I went to this trouble because it's likely reliable secondary sources will soon emerge covering the twitter and substack argument between Ms. McCain and Mr. Schmidt. Let's keep our eyes on the ball folks. We're an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Let's collect the sources and follow them. BusterD (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)