Talk:Heather Wilson

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Edofedinburgh 14:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

POV?

Sorry if you felt that was POV. Stern IS a talk radio giant, that doesn't mean I support him or hate Heather Wilson, or that I support Wilson and hate Howard Stean. --JamesB3 15:34, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

JamesB3, I responded to your comment on your Talk page. Again, please don't take POV to be a personal insult or the be an indication that I think you added POV material (an opinion) on purpose. I was just trying to bring the article into a more encyclopedic style of writing. If you have specific concerns or points you'd like to make, I'd look forward to hearing them. Again, thank you for adding the more recent material! --ABQCat 04:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ip 66.166.243.37 - It is against the rules to make unsigned changes to a page. Blatently partisan attacks will be removed Bachs 00:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please make this article less biased; it is difficult to compare both parties when one biography is basically an attack on the individual. Thanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.187.123 (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

DeLay

None of the allegations against DeLay have been proven. Ronnie Earle, the Tom Delay prosecutor, has a history of indictments against Democrat and Republican political enemies that have failed (see Kay Bailey Hutchison) and it has been widely reported that Earle had to shop the charges to several grand juries because some refused to indict. [1] One of the charges filed by Earle was summarily dismissed by trial judge Pat Priest. Earle has partnered up with producers making a movie, called The Big Buy, about his pursuit of DeLay that has been filming since before DeLay was notified of the charges. [2] [3] [4]

This was added because the added statement about Tom Delay is an unproven allegation that is used to make the member of congress guilty by association. Especially when there is much evidence that Ronnie Earle's indictments are politically motivated. You cannot include one side of an unproven allegation and not include the other, to do so would be unfair and biased. The best course of action is to leave any reference to DeLay on Tom Delay's page and not Heather's until this matter is resolved in a court of law.

Changed Delay Paragrapgh again in accoprdance with compromise with editor Roma

Now Reads

Wilson was the fourth largest recipient of former House Majority Leader DeLay's ARMPAC campaign contributions. DeLay is being prosecuted on charges of felony money laundering of campaign finances and conspiracy to launder money. To date, Wilson has returned less than a quarter of the $46,959 she received from ARMPAC.[5] [6] Republicans say that the charges against DeLay are politically motivated because prosecutor Ronnie Earle has a history of unsuccessful indictments against political enemies of both parties such as Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), and because it has been widely reported that Earle had to shop the charges to multiple grand juries because one refused to indict. [7] [8]Bachs 07:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Public health edit

I believe that this edit is overtly POV.

Voting against state's rights & public health

Wilson is supporting an amendment to the Toxic Substance Control Act sponsored by Representative Paul Gillmor (R-OH) that would set the stage for removing states' rights over public health protections from toxic chemicals, and would place the politically-appointed head of the EPA in authority over international treaty law. The EPA head is currently under attack for possible collusion with the pesticide industry for approval of pesticides without adequate scientific safety study. Wilson's votes would override her own state's existing legislation regarding protecting the public from toxic chemicals.

Main reasons:

• This isn't an enormously publicized piece of legislation. It seems that the only reason it's here is because the editor has a bone to pick with the bill and with Heather Wilson. Personally, I don't really think this should be here if all of her other votes aren't here as well.
• It doesn't actually SAY what the bill does in specifics, it just makes sweeping statements like "set the stage for removing states' rights.

-Vontafeijos 02:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This is just wrong

I find it remarkable that the hullaballoo about the "missing documents" pointed out that it was a sexual allegation by a minor, in the section headline, but somehow failed to mention that when the documents finally surfaced, they showed that the department and the police thoroughly investigated and found that the allegation lacked sufficient credibility for criminal prosecution. All editors who were involved in that should review WP:BLP. Dino 22:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I see the scanned documents but don't see any finding in them that the allegation lacked credibility. They are hard to read so maybe I'm not looking in the right place. A more specific pointer would be appreciated. 64.160.39.153 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed that description and made it more closely follow what the scanned doc itself said, but further improvement looks possible. The ironic thing is I think this type of document is normally not made public; it only became a public matter because of Wilson's attempt to sanitize the files. 64.160.39.153 04:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this article too biased?

Just a question for discussion. It seems that this article fails to focus on Congresswoman Wilson's personal and legislative accomplishments, putting far too much emphasis on so-called "scandals" and other trivialities. Certainly, the current scandal involving the firing of the U.S. attorneys merits attention, but I don't think it's necessary to focus so much attention on it. Perhaps someone should include an excerpt of her explanation of the affair, contained on her website. Based on what it says, the call she made was far from an ethics violation, it was simply fulfilling her responsibilities to respond to the concerns of her constituents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrandall8 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Feel free to expand other aspects of the article then. However, removing valid information about past scandals would be biased. C56C 02:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The entire section about "Jay Hone's hidden file" has been removed. It relies very heavily on an unreliable source: an unofficial transcript of an interview, created and emailed to "Democracy in New Mexico" by an unidentified person. WP:BLP does not allow such an unreliable source to be used to accuse Jay Hone, a living person, of being a child molester and his wife, Heather Wilson, another living person, of official misconduct. Kzq9599 03:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

You can call the TV station for a copy of the video or read the newswire about it on lexisnexis. Even still I added another source: Jeff Jones, "Wilson's Report Story Resurfaces," Albuquerque Journal October 20, 2006 Pg. B1 to quell your concerns. That article mentions raw story as a source and a 1996 Albuquerque Journal article as another source for controversy. Secondly, the article does not accuse him of being a "child molestor," read the article again. Thirdly, I am curious, though, why did you remove information about an ongoing investigation. C56C 20:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What "ongoing investigation"? These events occurred in 1996. That was 11 years ago. In federal court, the statute of limitations is five years. In New Mexico state court, it's even less. If there's an "ongoing investigation," it's a witch hunt by left-wing bloggers and nothing more. This story "resurfaced" on October 20, 2006 because there was an election less than three weeks later. This was political theater by the Patricia Madrid campaign and by her sympathizers in the Albuquerque news media. It failed to achieve its goal: Heather Wilson won re-election. The fact that Heather Wilson's political enemies dug up this rotting old corpse of a charge, and tried to smear it in her face one more time, is a reflection on how down and dirty the Democratic Party was willing to go in order to win. Why do you insist on dragging Wikipedia down to that gutter level of politics? Kzq9599 01:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

I strongly suggest you read the material before you remove anything more. The removal I commented on concerning the investigation was

is under a preliminary investigation by the House Ethics Committee over whether she made inappropriate contact with the United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico by inquiring, shortly before an election in which she faced a stiff challenge, on the status of a corruption investigation involving a Democratic politician. [9]

These are serious news stories. C56C 01:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the "dismissal of US attorneys" investigation, an entirely different matter. If this "Jay Hone the child molester" story had any legs, both Hone and Wilson would have been prosecuted and thrown in prison in 1996: Hone for sexual battery, and Wilson for official misconduct. They weren't. This is being brought up now in an attempt to dig up dirt on Wilson, to discredit her during the "dismissal of US attorneys" case. Wikipedia should not allow itself to be used as a vehicle for this political chicanery. Also, if it's available on Lexis/Nexis, you should have used that as your source instead of this partisan left-wing blog. The fact that you elected to use the left-wing blog's unofficial transcript, rather than the official transcript you claim to be available on a reliable, non-partisan source, doesn't look good. Kzq9599 01:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

YOU removed the mention of an ongoing investigation. Don't blame me for your failure to realize your own deletions. I added a better source for the Jay Hone, which mentions the rawstory link. Since a legitimate media reported rawstory's article as significant it is included. Saying "if this was true it'd be more widely reported" cuts both ways; If this were untrue Wilson would have a libel case against the TV station, newspapers, and "leftwing blogs." I could careless about "truth" as wikipedia is concerned with WP:V not "truth." Also I didn't add the transcript or add the story. I merely cleaned it up after your reckless deletions. C56C 04:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

When you mentioned "ongoing investigation," I didn't realize that you were talking about the article lede. I removed that, because it doesn't belong in the lede. The section about the "dismissal of US attorneys" is still in the body of the article, where it belongs. The MoveOn.org and DailyKos.com partisans can be relied upon to dig up this "Jay Hone is a child molester" story three weeks before every election. The Albuquerque Journal story was in response to the fact that the MoveOn.org and DailyKos.com partisans dug it up:

Dailykos.com, rawstory.com and dukecityfix.com carried items on the issue, generating hundreds of blogger responses and a string of anonymous calls to the Journal. However, the police report in question was never lost: It remains a public file at the Albuquerque Police Department. The story now being trumpeted in cyberspace was reported in 1996 by then-KOAT Action 7 News reporter Larry Barker and also was reported on by the Journal in 1996 and 1998. Let's start at the beginning: Wilson's husband, Jay Hone, is a longtime youth mentor and was named in a 1993 APD report involving him and a male who was then 16 years old. Hone was not arrested or charged with any crime, and the Journal elected not to print specifics from the report.

Wilson, who is seeking re-election this year in a tough battle with Democratic Attorney General Patricia Madrid, served as head of the state Children, Youth and Families Department from 1995 to 1998 before winning her first election to the 1st Congressional District seat in 1998. During Wilson's first week as CYFD secretary, she ordered a file involving Hone's role as a foster parent to be moved from an Albuquerque warehouse to the CYFD offices at the Capitol. A family friend has said that file contained the 1993 police report.

Then-Bernalillo County District Attorney Bob Schwartz was critical of Wilson's handling of the file. "The problem is when a public employee uses their official capacity to go ahead and take care of a personal problem," Schwartz was quoted as saying in an Aug. 9, 1996 Journal story. "There is a specific statutory frame on how these things are to be handled," he said. Although still critical of her actions, Schwartz in a 1998 Journal story said Wilson did not break the law when she moved the report.

Isn't it funny how Schwartz admitted that the law was not broken, but that admission didn't find its way into the Wikipedia article? Both Jay Hone and Heather Wilson were cleared by law enforcement. This story only "resurfaced" due to the partisan actions of left-wing blogs rather than the Albuquerque Journal. Their political chicanery should not be rewarded by being permanently enshrined in Wilson's Wikipedia biography, which is supposed to be NPOV. Kzq9599 13:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion is WP:V. Do not remove that again. These are WP:V sources. C56C 18:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You completely removed mention of the invesigation.[10] If you continue your account and IP will be blocked from wikipedia. C56C 18:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Kzq9599 is right to include the note that no charges were filed, but wrong to remove the entire section. To conflate notability with legality is wrong; the lack of legal charges is not a valid reason to remove the section. The number of verifiable news outlets covering the story, however, is sufficient to justify its inclusion. -Pete 19:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You are posting partisan political theater from DailyKos.com and I have reverted it. The story you've linked in the Albuquerque Journal was commenting on the political chicanery by DailyKos.com and clearly indicated that this was a dead story. It was about a child molesting accusation from 14 years ago. No charges were filed, no arrests were made, and county prosecutor Schwartz admitted that when Wilson moved the file, no laws were broken. The alleged "victim" is now 30 years old, and didn't want to press charges in the first place.

I am beginning to suspect that you're a paid political operative from the Patricia Madrid campaign. I've reverted your political chicanery again. It has no place in an encyclopedia, except under the heading, "Dirty Tricks by DailyKos.com." You have cited WP:V but you conveniently avoid any mention of WP:NPOV and especially WP:BLP. Kzq9599 23:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Your personal attacks aren't going to get you anywhere. Also I'd like to see some proof for your very serious allegation.[11] In light of your accusation, your history leds me to ask more questions.

Your continued removing[12] and get you will be blocked. C56C 23:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You mention that "conflating notability with legality is wrong." I say that DailyKos.com does not decide for us what's notable and what is not. Their timing, three weeks before the 2006 election, reveals their political motive. WP:BLP forbids inclusion of this material in an encyclopedia article about living persons. Both Wilson and Hone were cleared by the appropriate law enforcement authorities. I am reporting this to the WP:BLP Noticeboard, the Administrators' Noticeboard, and an administrator. Kzq9599 23:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

I have deleted the allegation concerning a 1990 incident as a WP:BLP violation. Newyorkbrad 23:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that Daily Kos does not decide what is notable – but that argument is a straw man. The news outlets that have provided a foundation for a claim of notability are KOAT-TV and the Albuquerque Journal. (Other national news outlets covered this as well, though I don't have exact citations handy.) Please quote specific text of the AJ article that indicates it is a "dead story" - it would be unusual indeed for a newspaper to cover a dead story, usually they would just ignore it and move on to the next.

Kzq9599 and Newyorkbrad, if you believe there is a violation of BLP, please tell us which part. BLP says great care must be taken,and it looks like it has been here. Significantly, your request that "no charges have been filed" be added has been granted, and rightly so. -Pete — Preceding undated comment added 23:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My concern is less with the allegations against Representative Wilson and more with the comments concerning Jay Hone, who is not a public figure. In light of ongoing talkpage discussion I will wait for a short time before re-deleting the content, but I do not see any basis for publicizing unproved allegations of this nature against a non-public figure, some 16 years after the fact. Newyorkbrad 00:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Brad, the only possible motivation for it is indicated by the original source (DailyKos.com) and the timing (three weeks before the 2006 election). The Albuquerque Journal story was in response to the carefully timed political theater (known as astroturfing ) by DailyKos.com, and the Journal's tone clearly indicated that this was a long dead story. This political chicanery should not be rewarded by being permanently enshrined in Wilson's Wikipedia article. Kzq9599 00:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

On balance you are probably right that none of it should stay, but my point is that it's not as outrageous as the other stuff. Let's see what the commenters at the BLP noticeboard have to say. Newyorkbrad 00:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, thanks for explaining. News organizations such as the Albuquerque Tribune and the Albuquerque Herald also operate under restrictions like WP:BLP, as they are subject to libel laws. Both saw fit to cover this story, though as you point out, they rightly keep the focus on Wilson and not Hone. Responding to the previous concern of notability, this story was covered at least as far back as 2004 in the Albuquerque Tribune. Kzq9599, your claim that DailyKos manipulated a legitimate news outlet sounds like original research; can you provide a verifiable citation for this claim? -Pete 00:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

See my comments above. Newyorkbrad 00:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pete. Moreover, I want to point out that Kzq9599's accusations about being a political operative are strange consider that editors ONLY edits are political and his/her first edit was to email user's with known political sympathies.[13] C56C's has edited a wide range of articles.

As for Kzq9599's conspiracies, whatever. The claim is sourced with WP:RS and the blog notations are WP:ATT. If these claims stated by false that is for Wilson's office and the sources to work out. Until then, it would violate WP:NPOV to remove it. Arbustoo 00:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen/Gentlewomen why is this even included in the article? If I am not mistaken the article is about Heather Wilson not her husband. To throw out accusations and innuendos serves no purpose to the individual or Wikipedia. In fact, I would shy away from any and all controversial language, possible slander, considering some of the press focused on Wikipedia now regarding topics just like this Shoessss 00:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears because she held a press conference and said she did not remove the file, and then later admitted to it. Shoesss where is "innuendo"? Everything is sourced. If Rawstory forged the documents[14] and the Tribune reported on that then Wilson's office should take action against Rawstory. Arbustoo 00:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of File rewrite

I'm in agreement that this section is given too much attention in the article. The controversy is noteworthy but not that it has "resurfaced." It is irrelevant whether the blog is left- or right-wing. Resurfacing of controversies are a 24/7 occurrence. I disagree with the current edit war -- instead, discussion of possible rewrites should be done until a consensus can be met. To start, "Critics have long...." is a violation of WP:AWW. The length and detail of the section is a violation of WP:UNDUE. That this section is the same length as the controversy about the AGs, a much more serious controversy, I think we can agree, shows this section is out of balance. Arguably, this section depends upon sensationalism, which is a violation of WP:NPOV.

Let me add, for Kzq9599, to remember WP:Assume good faith.

So, I suggest that we use the discussion page to see if a consensus is possible before going to other avenues (say, WP:RFC) to resolve this.

Here is my suggested rewrite:

In 1996, while working as the Secretary of the State of New Mexico's Department of Children, Youth and Families, Wilson removed a confidential file from the Department's central location which included allegations involving her husband. When news reports revealed the removal, Wilson, after first denying, admitted doing so. In 1998, Wilson's Democratic opponent alleged in a campaign ad that Wilson had abused her authority by moving the file.[15]

Details are all there in the ABQ article. Skip all the other cites.

Thoughts? Therefore 00:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also I see no harm in mentioning that the news clip was originally on youtube.[16] Arbustoo 00:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Jay Hone

I removed the section dealing with accusations against Jay Hone, no charges were ever filed. Do not add this material back per WP:BLP Thanks. RxS 00:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Pete, the astroturfing claim is supported by the article in the Albuquerque Journal. (October 20, 2006, less than three weeks before the election.) They said that the DailyKos.com "resurfacing" of these smears (after some partisan scuba diving in the political gutter) was followed by "a string of anonymous calls to the Journal." Shoessss, you are correct: accusations and innuendos that were never proven, where county prosecutor Schwartz (a Democrat) admitted that Wilson broke no law by moving the file, does not serve the purpose of Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a mouthpiece for DailyKos.com. And before C56C makes any accusations against me, if the name of the House member was Nancy Pelosi and the name of the partisan blog was Little Green Footballs, my position would be exactly the same. I am registered as an independent and I carry no brief for either party.

Arbustoo, she didn't "remove" the file. She "moved" it to a different location within the Department of Children, Youth and Families. Yes, the choice of words wasn't entirely clear; but the file was never removed from DCYF custody. Kzq9599 00:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Umm, you are the new user throwing baseless claims of operatives and focusing on partisan politics. You should watch what you claim. You really need to back off and take a deep breath. Arbustoo 00:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

RxS and Newyorkbrad, please explain the part of BLP that justifies removal of this section. BLP is a complex policy, and this bears explanation. I don't see any conflict with policy. That there were allegations against Jay Hone is a verifiable fact; so is Wilson's removal of the documents from their original location, and her statement to the contrary on broadcast television. Whose BLP's rights are violated by the inclusion of this section?

I think the rewrite, above, is a reasonable rendering. -Pete 00:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an article about Heather Wilson, not Jay Hone. Secondly, no charges were ever filed. I will consider blocking anyone who insists on re-adding the material. RxS 00:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, child molestation is a serious allegation According to the ABQ Journal, "A family friend said the file contained a 1993 police report. The report involved Hone and a 16-year-old boy — not adopted son Scott — whose legal interests Hone represented. Friends say the report was the result of an inadvertent act that was not found to constitute abuse."[17] Arbustoo 01:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You did not explain the BLP concerns. Lots of people do things without getting charges filed. Behavior of one's spouse is relevant to a public figure's biography. How does that address BLP? Arbustoo 00:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

RxS, please ease up on the threats - nobody has reverted your edit. I did, however, misread your edit - I thought you had removed the entire section, not just the last paragraph. I think the current version is fairly good, but that sloppy writing (totally understandable in the current frenzy) would leave the uninformed reader a little mystified about what the issue is. But that can be fixed. Let's just all keep calm, yes? The section is improving, thanks to everyone's hard work. -Pete 00:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that was ridiculously inappropriate material. I expected more argument, I don't usually come on that strong but this needed to be settled as soon as possible. Sorry about throwing an elbow there. RxS 01:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned because the details are unnecessary to the controversy. So why include them? They seem to be sensationalistic, not libelous. As mentioned, the article is about Wilson. Therefore 00:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Charges of child abuse are a very sensitive topic. There needs to an extremely good reason to add material like that. Not to mention the article isn't even about him. We err on the side of sensitivity toward living people. RxS 00:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh please Arbustoo, by your assertion Hillary should not even consider running based on Bill’s conviction of perjury. This article should have nothing to do with Ms. Wilson’s husband. Shoessss 00:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What? Arbustoo 00:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Schwartz is a Democrat. He was the county prosecutor at the time. He produced a lot of lightning and thunder but, in the end, he admitted that no laws were broken when the file was moved. Jay Hone is not a public figure, and all indications are that he has served honorably as a foster parent. He shouldn't have this accusation following him around the rest of his life simply because his wife is a member of Congress, and there are despicable political partisans out these who are scraping the Internet for any dirt they can dig up on her. This is America. Both Wilson and Hone are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Wikipedia should not be used for this partisan witch hunt. Kzq9599 00:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

It is true that the details concerning her husband are not important, but the fact that the removal of the file (from central) was raised in the 1998 election makes it newsworthy. Almost any controversy can be attempted to be argued away as partisan. That doesn't make it a non-controversy. Therefore 01:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

to: kzq9599 -- instead of making unilateral edits, could you please go ahead and comment about my suggested rewrite (above)? Or at least to discuss these changes here to see if we can come up with a consensus rewrite? Therefore 01:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe Therefore has found the middle ground. The allegations of hiding the files are news worthy, in the fact the allegations were made public in and of themselves. However, the detail of the files, when only allegations and innuendos are the substance of the files, is a homemade brew for a slander or defamation of character lawsuit. Shoessss 01:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Doe we feel that there is agreement on the rewrite? I'm not getting feedback from kaz because he is changing the article on his own. Therefore 01:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's my comment: I've already edited the section in question. It presents all the facts fairly, without innuendo. In particular, Wilson's motive for moving the file and the fact that it was "moved," not "removed," have been made clear. Take a look at my version and let's see what you think. I object to including this section at all since the Democratic district attorney admitted she broke no law. But evidently consensus favors including it if the child molesting allegations against Jay Hone are excluded. Kzq9599 01:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Sorry, spoke too soon. I would think that discussion before changing is called for here. Your changes have added lots of detail, but I think the rewrite keeps the matter short and to the point. Therefore 01:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the POV statement at the end of the paragraph. Therefore 01:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Kqz, please use the "talk" page for editing until more consensus develops. I believe consensus is developing, particularly around the notion that details of Hone's alleged activities do not belong in the article. Your editing of the live page, while it's in dispute, is making it harder to build consensus. -Pete 01:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

More sources[18][19] Arbustoo 01:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. We would just stack all three of them at the end of the paragraph. Therefore 01:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Kzq9599, but I agree with Therefore, you still have very strong POV statements in the rewrite. My personal choice is still Therefore’s rewrite. Shoessss 01:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that you kzq hasn't addressed my WP:UNDUE concern. And I believe some of the new statements are not in the sources. Therefore 01:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

to kzq -- should I assume in good faith you have read my suggested rewrite? I would like to hear from you about your concerns. Here is its current state:

In 1996, while working as the Secretary of the State of New Mexico's Department of Children, Youth and Families, Wilson removed a confidential file from the Department's central location which included allegations involving her husband. When news reports revealed the removal, Wilson, after first denying, admitted doing so. In 1998, Wilson's Democratic opponent alleged in a campaign ad that Wilson had abused her authority by moving the file.[20][21][22]

I do not care for the connotations that the word removed has….again I would go with Therefore’s wording of moved the file. Other than that….go for it.Shoessss 01:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How about this:

In 1996, while working as the Secretary of the State of New Mexico's Department of Children, Youth and Families, Wilson rmoved a confidential file from the Department's central location which included allegations involving her husband. When news reports revealed this, Wilson, after first denying, admitted doing so. In 1998, Wilson's Democratic opponent alleged in a campaign ad that Wilson had abused her authority by moving the file.[23][24][25]

Therefore 01:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

We now have a WP:RS that shows what the file contained about a 16 year old boy.[26] That is important, as she didn't remove a file with her dental records. Arbustoo 01:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbustoo, not to pick on you guy….but I still have a problem with the connotations the word removed has. Even in the article you cited they use the phrase “…..moved the file”. Shoessss 01:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree -- the sources use "move" not "remove." Therefore 01:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep (uncharged unproven) allegations of sexual misconduct out of this article please. Thanks. RxS 01:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are splitting hairs with "moved" or "removed." For example, "But the Republican former prosecutor also said, 'The file should not have been removed. That was improper'."[27] But it doesn't matter to me if you use move. Arbustoo 01:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of stabilizing this discussion

I would like to suggest that we all place Therefore's version on main page, and temporarily restrict all editing to this "talk" page. If others agree with that approach, please say so. If a good number of people accept that approach, I suggest that an admin enforce WP:3RR for any editor who subsequently edits the main page prior to some kind of consensus being reached here. A specific time frame might be helpful - how about a 24 hour block on edits? -Pete 01:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

YES Shoessss 01:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Therefore and Pete, I've read Therefore's version and I've been trying use the word "moved" rather than "removed" from the very beginning, due to the connotations concern that Shoesss has raised. I believe that an acceptable compromise has worked itself out in the article mainspace. I am still concerned about WP:UNDUE, however. WP:UNDUE is not susceptible to consensus decisions. It is policy; and even if we were all unanimous in agreeing that it should be in there, in my opinion Wikipedia policy requires its removal. Kzq9599 01:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

To be clear, my WP:UNDUE concerns is that the section is so large -- it is now THREE paragraphs. I don't think the article mainspace reflects consensus since you did the edits unilaterally. Therefore 01:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Kzq, that is not the question I posed in this section. The question is this, for you and anyone involved in this discussion: will you support a temporary suspension of main article edits, while we continue to discuss the details on the talk page? -Pete 01:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Pete -- I would like to hear first from kzq whether he would accept the above rewrite (where "removed" has been changed to "moved") is acceptable. Therefore 01:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I just think we're getting off track, worrying too much about the state of the article over the next, say, 24 hours, while we consider the longer-term state of the article. I for one don't care whether it says "moved" or "removed" in the interim; but I find the main article edit war very distracting to the otherwise positive process underway. -Pete 01:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, then. Therefore 01:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, you guys work it out and I'll check back later on. However, given that I tracked down a source that explains what was in the file that should be included. Because without the file's significance the reader doesn't understand the movitation for moving it. Arbustoo 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa….Have you read the article? By your implication of the possible charges and misconduct by Ms Wilson’s husband, that the files hold and what the article actually states are not just worlds apart but universe apart! I say no reference should be made, and that is based on YOUR reference material. Shoessss 02:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbustoo, Wilson stated that her motivation for removing it was that she didn't want every employee in the department to have access to her family's personal information. Readers can understand that without citing the contents of the file. Therefore, I would accept your rewrite as a temporary measure until we can work out a permanent solution, if you add a sentence indicating that neither Wilson nor Hone was ever charged with any crime, despite extensive investigations by at least three agencies: Albuquerque PD, Bernalillo County DA's office, and DCYF. Kzq9599 01:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Kzq, if you do not intend to answer the central question posed in this section, please start a new section. I would prefer that you answer, but that's up to you. -Pete 01:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

We have to make it absolutely crystal clear, at all times, that no laws were broken. I have answered the central question posed in this section and I'll repeat my answer: I would accept your rewrite as a temporary measure until we can work out a permanent solution, if you add a sentence indicating that neither Wilson nor Hone was ever charged with any crime, despite extensive investigations by at least three agencies: Albuquerque PD, Bernalillo County DA's office, and DCYF.Kzq9599 01:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Whoa….Have you read the article? By your implication of the possible charges and misconduct by Ms Wilson’s husband, that the files hold and what the article actually states are not just worlds apart but universe apart! I say no reference should be made, and that is based on YOUR reference material. Shoessss 02:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Kzq, thanks for clarifying. The condition you're attaching represents a significant departure from what you've previously argued for - and what I've supported you on. Asserting that Hone was never charged with a crime is one thing; adding that Wilson wasn't denies something that is never asserted, and the whole "despite" thing goes a whole lot further.

I suggest we put down Kzq as objecting to my suggestion, rather than quibble over temporary details. I will request at the 3RR page that an admin edit the article to Therefore's version, which has broad but not complete consensus, and impose a 24 hour block on the main article. -Pete 02:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

no laws were broken

Isn't this implicit with "alleged"? Therefore 02:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This section doesn't belong in the article at all. No laws were broken. Democratic partisans have tried for years, and failed miserably, to use it as a stick to bash Heather Wilson. They do not deserve to have their efforts permanently enshrined in this article. It is the lowest form of political thuggery. Kzq9599 02:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

To repeat myself from above, " but the fact that the removal of the file (from central) was raised in the 1998 election makes it newsworthy. Almost any controversy can be attempted to be argued away as partisan. That doesn't make it a non-controversy." Therefore 02:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Therefore, you've been fair in all this. Go ahead and do a rewrite, and we'll look it over for consensus. Arbustoo 02:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of issues get raised in elections. That doesn't make each and every one of them notable, or otherwise appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia biography. In Bill Clinton's article, the allegations about Monica Lewinsky merit very little coverage. There is no mention of those allegations in the lede of the article. Clinton admitted that he made false statements under oath (perjury is a felony) and he was impeached for it. Use that article as a guide regarding WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Kzq9599 02:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the Clinton article, but for the record Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, Impeachment of Bill Clinton and Lewinsky scandal is pretty indepth. (There are other articles than these too) Arbustoo 02:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, you are driving me nuts with the word “Removal”. I understand that I can be anal at times, however the difference between “Removed” and “Moved” does imply in one, a wrongdoing and in the other a mistake, mostly likely in judgment. Either way have a great evening Shoessss 02:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbustoo, the Lewinsky scandal isn't in the lede of the Bill Clinton article, even though he was impeached for it. The Bill Clinton article is sufficiently high-profile that a lot of very experienced editors and admins have weighed in on it, and it is a fair representation of our policies here at Wikipedia. In Wilson's case, the "fired US attorneys" case is just in the preliminary investigation stage and half of the lede is devoted to it. Kzq9599 02:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

It was your example, and there is a lot of material on wikipedia about it. Arbustoo 02:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

To Shoessss -- Sorry about that. The version I used in the article uses the word "move" not "removal." I think if you look above, I agreed to this change a while ago. Therefore 02:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Therefore, I'm fine with that for now. Arbustoo 02:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that on the Hillary article there is only one short paragraph, and very little substance concerning the Lewinski scandal. Shouldn’t we treat Ms, Wilson with the same respect? Shoessss 02:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course we should, Shoessss. But Heather Wilson is a Republican. Arbustoo, you've mentioned Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, Impeachment of Bill Clinton and Lewinsky scandal but those are not the Bill Clinton biography. Kzq9599 02:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

And that is the goal here -- to keep the information down to one short, informational paragraph. Therefore 02:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Shoesss, you want to model this page after Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies? Including the section about her being tied to Vincent Foster's death[28]? You have fun playing your partisan games, children. Geez, learn about WP:FORK and spin outs before playing these games. Sheesh. Arbustoo 02:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No politics, just fairness. That is all I ask….and by the way I’m a very proud Libertarian. Never would have guessed would ya J. Shoessss 02:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a strawman, Arbustoo. Neither Shoessss nor I want to model this article after Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies, Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, Impeachment of Bill Clinton and Lewinsky scandal because those are not biographies. Heather Wilson is a biography. We want to model this biography after other biographies, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Clinton. Neither one of those two biographies mentions any scandal in the article lede. Kzq9599 02:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

You missed the entire point. There reason why there is little content about Clinton controversies is because it has its own article! An entire article devoted to controversies dug up by political opponents. We don't have that with this article. Thus, we will have to be as clear and fair as possible. If that means two paragraphs on moving a file an article so be it. Why don't you run over the to Clinton articles and removed the Foster conspiracy junk? That is, you aren't playing political games here.Arbustoo 02:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that is the point. If a separate article is necessary, make a separate article. However, to implicate an individual and to throw out innuendos and slander is a problem on a biography page that does not even deal with that individual is wrong, wrong, wrong. In fact, that is why I despise politics. Just give me the facts. I will make-up my own mind, thank you very much. Shoessss 02:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You just compared this to the Hillary article! I pointed out that the reason there isn't so much controversy is it has its own article! The comparison makes no sense. Arbustoo 02:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not modeled after one another, they are crafted in accordance with policies and, generally, guidelines. Articles of various quality and political bents could be used to justify any argument; but those justifications are not acceptable. If you guys want to continue this irrelevant line of discussion, I encourage you to do so on your talk pages. -Pete 03:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No edits for 24 hours?

kzq -- I thought we agreed to discuss changes first here on the talk page?? Therefore 02:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

By my count, Kzq is the one editor who did not agree, while 4 editors (apparently representing both pro- and anti- Wilson points of view) did agree to that. -Pete 02:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm neither pro- nor anti-Wilson. I live in Portland. ;) Therefore 02:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Same for me - including the Portland part! Have you thought about joining Wikiproject Oregon? We've got a good thing going over there :) -Pete 02:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, how many of you voted for Kerry? Kzq9599 02:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

I vote for the integrity of Wikipedia policies. Therefore 02:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"""HER_HERE""" Therefore. Shoessss 02:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Kzq9599, are you working for a political organization? I ask since you have accused others of playing political games. Arbustoo 02:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I vote for keeping the focus on the content of the article, and not the perceived bias of various editors. If any of you work for political organizations on either side, more power to you. Just be prepared, as Therefore said, to back your edits up with WP policies. -Pete 02:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I wanted to get this editor on record since s/he keeps throwing political accusations at everyone. Arbustoo 02:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

In light of the input from Newyorkbrad concerning WP:BLP, how many of you are still going to accuse me of vandalizing the article? Kzq9599 02:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

I'll accuse you of ignoring WP:CONSENSUS if you remove the content again. Arbustoo 03:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

ANYWAY

Let's all assume good faith, at least for a moment, and proceed under the assumption that nobody here is going to tamper with the article while we discuss it.

I would like to take a stab at breaking down the remaining issues to be discussed, and keep each in its own section, so we don't rehash things too much. Please comment on my breakdown, and make additions if I've left anything out.

Also, in recognition of Kzq9599's objection, I put a Neutrality template at the top of the section in question. -Pete 03:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Would a {{Underdiscussion}} be more accurate than a neutrality template? Therefore 04:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

general notability of the issue

As it stands.Shoessss 03:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it was used in a political campaign issue is sufficient. Therefore 03:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's notable, but that's not the only hurdle that has to be cleared. It's notable because some Democrats scraped the bottom of the sewer for some mud to sling. Kzq9599 03:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

(also by Kzq9599): The entire section is also a violation of WP:UNDUE because no laws were broken and the story is 14 years old. Kzq9599 03:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Where in WP:UNDUE are the issues of legality or age discussed? My frustration with WP:UNDUE is that too much of the article was dedicated to this controversy. Therefore 03:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The original incidents are 14 years old, but the story has evolved with Wilson's statements on TV, and its prominence in the 2004 and 2006 campaigns. I believe the inclusion in multiple news stories in reliable sources spanning nearly a decade is sufficient to establish its inclusion.

Wording the final edit such that Kqz9599's contention that it's political mudslinging is accommodated is important. I think Kqz's argument has some merit, but not as a reason for non-inclusio0n. -Pete 03:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Kzq9599, WP:UNDUE is not the proper citation for this. While Wikipedia is not paper, the point is to keep this controversy from becoming too big in relation to other issues. Arbustoo 03:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How about:

In 1998 and subsequent elections, Wilson's Democratic opponents alleged that Wilson had abused her authority by moving the file despite no charges being filed. Therefore 03:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you are falling into Kzq9599's trap. It was a new agency that asked her. She denied it before she admitted it. Arbustoo 03:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify this for me? I'm being obtuse, I know. I am suggesting this as a replacement of the last sentence of the paragraph. The paragraph mentions that she at first denied moving the file. I am trying to find consensus language that includes kzq's and pete's point -- a point I tried to make without adding in a POV. How would you suggest wording it? Therefore 03:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe that WP:UNDUE is a proper cite. "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Therefore 04:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay to clarif my recent statement: It is NOT a strictly partisan issue. The media is a good mirror that were legitimate concerns of wrong doing. The DA criticized her even though he did not say it was illegal. That is, this need not be painted solely as a campaign issue. My UNDUE comment was to kzq's excuse to remove this. Arbustoo 04:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The local news media do not define notability for us. And I will remind you again that notability is only one hurdle that must be cleared. Neither Jay Hone nor Heather Wilson did anything wrong. DailyKos.com can be expected to make this issue mysteriously "resurface" three weeks before every election. On this most recent occasion, the general public had been whipped into a frenzy by the Mark Foley scandal, involving an inappropriate contact with another 16-year-old boy. Timing is everything. This belongs in the Daily Kos article under an "Astroturfing in New Mexico" section header, but it doesn't belong here because of WP:UNDUE. Kzq9599 11:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

You make a valid point that local news media is not always sufficient, particularly when a controversy doesn't make it to the national press. Which is why I believe this deserves only a mention. However, I'll repeat myself, final legal adjudication of the facts isn't an issue here. Therefore 16:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP as relates to Wilson

Since Bob Schwartz, Democratic district attorney, has admitted that Heather Wilson didn't break any laws, the entire section is a WP:BLP violation. Kzq9599 03:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

What in the BLP are you citing? BLP states to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material. We have three solid sources[29][30][31] that address this as a legitimate controversy. She admitted moving the file. Arbustoo 03:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the Albuquerque Tribune, and KOAT-TV. If articles on living persons could include only convicted criminals, it would be a barren place indeed. Heather Wilson, a member of Congress, is clearly a public figure; her husband's status as a public figure is more murky. -Pete 03:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm from Australia, so I have little interest in American politics except as a detached (and sometimes amazed) observer. I am posting my response on the WP:BLPN noticeboard and I hope you will all take it to heart:

Even if there is a reliable source proving that the Patricia Madrid campaign tried to use this as a campaign issue in 2006, it should be removed from the article. Since Madrid did not win the election, she didn’t get any traction with this issue even if she used it. All editors agree that no laws were broken by either Wilson or her husband. The allegation against Wilson’s husband was never proven. He was never even arrested. In the current atmosphere created by the Mark Foley scandal, this allegation is completely poisonous. We shouldn’t even touch it unless we’re forced to do so. By using this material, we would be forced to provide links to news articles that explore details of the unproven allegations against Wilson’s husband, who is a private person.

This issue is decided by the prejudicial effect of hanging this unproven allegation around the neck of Wilson’s husband for the rest of his life. That prejudicial effect far outweighs any benefit to the article that might be gained from including a campaign issue about his wife. The section must be removed. If Wilson’s husband had been arrested and brought to trial, that would be different. If Wilson had broken the law by moving the file, that would also be different. The burden of probable cause would have been satisfied at least. But we don’t even have that much here. Obviously the authorities concluded that no crime was committed, so it should be kept out of the article. It's a close call, but in articles about living persons we must err on the side of caution. Delete the whole section. If readers are so very interested in seeking out scandal, they can use Google to find what they want to find; Wikipedia should refrain from helping them. NeilinOz1 20:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

You've raised some really good points. I think that these can be addressed without excising the section entirely. First, I believe a mention is legitimate because it was raised in the 1998 election in an official ad. I have not seen any source say it was raised officially as an issue in 2006 except in the blogosphere. Therefore, keep the verbiage as is -- that it was an issue in 1998. The fact that it was an issue in 2006 via blogs is not noteworthy for WP (even if newsworthy for the local media). Therefore, restrict the cites to the two from 1998 which do not go into detail of the allegations, thereby addressing your concerns about "forced to provide links." I believe, also, placing it as a paragraph in the "Career" section will lessen its importance. Therefore 20:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

In 1998, the Democratic candidate's campaign agreed that the ads were inappropriate and they voluntarily pulled the ads. So the existence of the ad doesn't legitimize the mention in the Wikipedia article. Neil makes a good argument. This shouldn't be included here. Kzq9599 01:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

In addition to the opinions of NeilinOz1 and Newyordbrad, Thatcher131 has made the following statement on WP:ANI. Like Newyorkbrad, Thatcher131 is an administrator:

It seems to me that 15 year old allegations, which were never proven, or even brought to trial, and were only resurfaced for purposes of politically attacking the spouse of a non-public figure, have no place on Wikipedia. [32]

The section of this article that mentions the DCFY file and its movement must be deleted. Thatcher131 mentions a previous ruling by the Arbitration Committee that involved a very permissive interepretation of WP:BLP by Arbustoo. The Arbitration Committee has ruled against Arbustoo in the past and would be likely to do so again. Wikipedia policy is not vulnerable to consensus, even if you had consensus. We have no choice. The disputed section must be removed. Kzq9599 01:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

We have a choice: Address the concerns of Thatcher131 which involves Wilson's husband being the focus of the section. See Conclusions, below. Therefore 20:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, according to the sources, Schwartz was a "Republican former prosecutor" and not a Democrat as kzq asserted a couple of times. Therefore 21:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP as relates to Jay Hone

As it stands.Shoessss 03:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No use should be made of his name, nor of the allegations, directly or indirectly. The cites can fill in the blanks. What is relevant is the movement of the file, not the specific, sensational allegations. Therefore 03:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Posting a link to an Albuquerque Journal article detailing the allegations is a violation of WP:BLP with respect to Jay Hone. Kzq9599 03:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

I don't believe so, kzq. The attribution is a proper WP:RS one. The established record can't be erased. Its details, however, have no place in Wikipedia as they are sensationalistic and are irrelevant to the article.

Her husband was mentioned by name in the articles and so was that the content was in reference to him and a 16 year old boy. That is exactly what the Albuquerque Journal said.[33] Wikipedia should be able to quote the state's largest newspaper. Arbustoo 03:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are in the cites. Except I don't believe inclusion of these facts into WP's Heather Wilson article are appropriate or relevant. Therefore 03:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

So you don't want to mention her husbands name in her biography? Arbustoo 03:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, from WP:NPOV, one type of bias is: "Sensationalist, favoring the exceptional over the ordinary." The details of the charge (alleged, never prosecuted, from 16 years ago, the details of which are not exactly damning, and the details of which are available via the link) are not at issue here. The movement of the file is at issue. I think admins would disallow any mention of the name nor do I think the lurid details should be included. Therefore 03:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

We all agree no lurid details should be included. However, failing to include her husbands name is going overboard. Arbustoo 03:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Her husband's name is already mentioned in the infobox at the top of the article; that should be plenty. The main point is that Wilson has been credibly accused of using her position of authority to protect a family member; her husband's identity need not be reiterated to make that point. -Pete 04:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You could be right there. I would suggest putting in a "Family" section which is where that sort of detail is included. Therefore 04:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think we are in all basic agreement then. The name need not be mention in the controversy section as long it is mentioned in the article who her husbandis. Arbustoo 04:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(consensus box moved down to bottom of section)

Hope I'm not being too bold with the box I put in above. If I'm in error, feel free to remove it and state your objection. -Pete 04:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

While the name doesn't have to be included, some mention of what was in the file needs to clarify to the reader why it might have been moved. I recommend quoting the Albuquerque Journal, "A family friend said the file contained a 1993 police report. The report involved Hone and a 16-year-old boy — not adopted son Scott — whose legal interests Hone represented. Friends say the report was the result of an inadvertent act that was not found to constitute abuse."[34] Arbustoo 04:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that informing the reader of its relevance is important, but disagree as to the level of detail required to do so. Something along the lines of: Wilson removed a file from the central blah blah, later stating that she wanted to restrict access to potentially embarassing information about a family member. I believe that clearly puts the focus on Wilson's actions, and properly leaves the specifics of Hone's involvement out. -Pete 04:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note, I'm not proposing we use that text, just trying to illustrate to Arbustoo that the name need not be included to make the point. -Pete 04:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to word it something like "the file contained information concerning potentially controvesial information regarding her family"... that's fine. For the reader who cares, they can click on the citation and learn more. Arbustoo 04:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the use of the word "allege" sufficient to imply controversy in this context? Therefore 04:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any problem with accommodating Arbustoo's concern within my statement of consensus, as even Wilson admits that the file's potentially embarassing nature was her reason for (re)moval. So I'm moving that box back to the bottom of this section. Let's move on to other topics, and make sure this section's points are addressed when we write the final version. I think this one point of agreement is a good accomplishment for us all, so I'm going to bed. Goodnight all! -Pete 04:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

CONSENSUS REACHED: Husband's name, and details of allegations against him, should not be mentioned in the section about document (re)moval.

Per Uncle G's comments below, the section title must be changed as well to comply with this agreement. Suggestions, anyone? -Pete 15:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

At the very minimum, I would make it simply "DCYF file." However, another solution would be to avoid providing a heading at all. I would move this paragraph to below the heading "Controversy and criticism" and before "Fired US attorneys" without a heading. Also, Pete, do you think a {{Underdiscussion}} tag may be better than a neutrality tag for the section? That may allow editors such as Uncle G to look for a discussion rather than initiating one? Therefore 16:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Another solution, one I like, is to move this paragraph where it belongs: under "Career," between the 1st and 2nd paragraphs where no heading would be required. The flow works: the 1st paragraph ends mentioning her position in DCYF which means the first sentence can be written simply as "In 1996, while working as the Secretary, Wilson moved...." Therefore 17:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be chronological; the current structure implies that the issue has similar importance to the attorney-firing issue, which is a distortion by any measure. I support putting the commentary on the DCYF file into chronological order, with no heading specific to its contents. -Pete 01:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"move" vs "remove"

"""Moved""" I believe everyone knows my Opinion on that. I’m done beating that dead horse. Shoessss 03:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are splitting hairs with "moved" or "removed." For example, "But the Republican former prosecutor also said, 'The file should not have been removed. That was improper'."[35] But it doesn't matter to me if you use "move." Arbustoo 03:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Although "move" and "remove" may be synonyms, there are denotative differences: "Remove" (Merriam-Webster) can mean to "eliminate," to "get rid of." Was the intent of Wilson to "eliminate" the folder or to "move" it out of sight? The paper, presumably a better authority on the use of words than the DA, used "move." However, I don't hold a strong opinion on this. Therefore 06:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this issue does not merit much attention. From the original KOAT-TV report:

Barker: “Did you order, this…a record…removed?" Wilson: “No.” Barker, “So this is totally inaccurate?" Wilson: “Yes."

The second question is the significant one. If Wilson wanted to draw a distinction between the words "move" and "remove," she had the opportunity to do so at the time, but declined to do so. Going out of our way to distinguish between "move" and "remove" would be unnecessarily confusing to the reader. -Pete 01:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the sources, the use of "remove" vs. "move" is the crux of the controversy involving her first "denial." She did say she didn't "remove" the file. Her spokesman later made the distinction between "removing" and moving in order to "safeguard." I think this distinction is critical for the section. Therefore 20:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

significance of whether or not a law was broken

Should state that a finding of "No" laws were broken. Shoessss 03:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The use of the term "alleged" makes this clear. Possibly, adding in the "no laws were broken" elevates suspicion. But, I don't have strong opinions on this. Just keep it short. Therefore 03:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That is the deciding factor. Because no law was broken, mudslinging Democratic partisans should not be rewarded for their mudslinging by permanently enshrining it here. 03:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree, but let's be clear on the quote "Schwartz did criticize Wilson's actions but said an investigation found the file was intact and hadn't been tampered with, therefore, nothing illegal had occurred."[36] The act was not itself illegal, but was questionable according to the DA. Arbustoo 03:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it should be included in the article. If every action of every politician that was found to be "questionable" by a politician of the opposing party was exchaustively listed in Wikipedia articles, we'd burn up the bandwidth fast. Every article about a member of Congress would be 10,000 words long; presidents would have to get 20,000 or 30,000 words. This is a manufactured issue. Opponents' political theater does not belong in a Wikipedia biography about a politician. Kzq9599 11:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Every political controversy is always countered with the partisan charge. If a partisan charge was enough to preclude its listing then you would only need a 300 baud modem to read Wikipedia. In this case, the issue rose above back room political chatter and made it into three separate news sources albeit local.Therefore 16:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Based upon what the sources say

It seems pretty clear to me from reading both of the ABQ Journal articles that Hone's wish is not to be a public figure, and that the contents of the file are not a matter of public record. There is no need for the content of this article to focus upon Hone at all. As such, even the title of the section is bad. The focus should be the election campaign, which is an entirely proper subject for a biographical article about a politician, and Wilson and Maloof. I suggest the following, dealing with the subject in exactly the same way that the other elections are dealt with, and which should be placed alongside them:

1998 election

Phil Maloof, Wilson's Democratic Party opponent in the United States House elections, 1998, placed advertisments during the election campaign alleging that Wilson, whilst working in 1996 as the Secretary of the State of the Children Youth & Families Department, New Mexico, had abused her authority by moving a confidential file whose contents involved her husband from a warehouse to the department's offices in the Capitol. This allegation was reported on television and the subject became a campaign issue during the election. Wilson stated that the file contained personal information about her family that she did not want department employees to have ready access to, for fear that it might be stolen or given to people who did not have the legal right to read it; and stated that she did not read the file's contents, open it, nor remove it from the department's offices, and that she did not attempt to deny access to it by department staff who were legally entitled to read it. She decried the advertisements as attacks upon her family. Former District Attorney Bob Schwartz, who had investigated the matter in August 1996, stated that Wilson had broken no laws, and that his investigation had revealed that, as Wilson stated, the file was intact and had not been tampered with. Whilst Maloof's campaign advertisment did not allege that Wilson had broken the law, it stating that Wilson had "abused her position of power", a consultant for his campaign did make such an allegation in an interview on a radio show broadcast by KOB-AM, a local radio station. The allegation was later described by a spokesman for Maloof as a mistake by that staff member. Both Wilson and Maloof agreed to abandon their negative advertising in June 1998.

References

• Leslie Linthicum (1998-07-19). "Friends Say Wilson's Husband Content on Sidelines". Albuquerque Journal. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Leslie Linthicum (1998-07-17). "Former DA Says Wilson Broke No Law Over File". Albuquerque Journal. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Uncle G 14:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Uncle G, thanks for comments, but can you please try to work within the structure above, for now, to keep issues separate? I think it's the only way we've been able to sustain some sanity in the last 12 hours or so, and reach some agreement. Please see my specific responses, which will be in the sections above. -Pete 15:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with actually proposing whole solutions, as well as addressing the discussion piecemeal. Uncle G 00:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm renaming THIS section to reflect your most significant suggestion, which I take to be combining the issue into the 1998 campaign section. Your other suggestions should all be addressed in the other parts of the discussion that are still going on. -Pete 15:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no "1998 campaign" section. Uncle G 00:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As to the combining, I disagree. The issue has come up, and been covered by the mainstream media, in 1998, 2004, and 2006. As to your rewrite in general, I think it lacks a certain balance that has flowed out of the discussions here, reflected in the current edit; among other things, it devotes too many words to this controversy. I see no reason to stray from our path of discussing/refining the text proposed by Therefore. -Pete 15:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And where are the citations of sources for such coverage? They aren't in the article, and they aren't in this talk page discussion. The two reliable sources that you have, documenting the issue, are contemporaneous with the 1998 campaign. The negative advertising was part of the 1998 campaign. The discussion belongs not in a "controversies" section, but in a (new) sub-section for the 1998 campaign, just like the sections for the other campaigns in other years. It is a disservice to the article's subject to move an episode completely out of its chronological context into a "controversies" section. Indeed, it is a bad idea to think that a "controversies" section, containing a grab-bag of all of the controversies that a person has been involved in throughout xyr life, without any historical context, is the way to approach the writing of biographical articles at all. Uncle G 00:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Uncle G's rewrite is incredibly long. I believe we should use the principle of parsimony for this issue. It deserves a mention and no more. I agree with everything that User:Pete said. Therefore 16:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's longer than what you have, yet it actually employs the principle of parsimony, by trimming out all of the details that can be found in the sources that aren't needed such as all of the what-isn't-in-the-file statements, the character references, the name of the campaign consultant who made the allegation, or anything at all related to the husband. It's nowhere near "incredibly long". Perhaps you are overused to stub articles.

Furthermore: Remember that there is a point where trimming out things distorts the account of events and causes non-neutrality. And you're doing exactly that by focusing upon trying to make the wording small instead of trying to make the coverage neutral. The current text quite rightly sports a non-neutrality notice. It doesn't present Wilson's position on what she did, documented quite extensively in the sources, at all. That's something that is presented by the suggested text above (in addition to presenting enough of the issue to document Maloof's position properly, too). To be neutral, the article has to be more comprehensive than the current text has it, so that it covers all of the sides to the issue. That means longer than the current text. "Short" and "neutral" are not synonyms.

Here's a short primer in the practical application of undue weight: It is undue weight to state that Wilson moved a file and to simply state that it was alleged that this was an abuse of authority without presenting her stated reasons for actually doing so; because it gives undue weight to the single view that it was improper, when another different view (documented in the sources, notice) is that it was entirely proper, and that the correct people were consulted about moving the file. It is undue weight to state that Wilson denied and then admitted moving the file, because it gives undue weight to the single view that she actually did that at all, when another different view (again, documented in the sources) is that moving a file to a place within the department where it is inaccessible to those not legally entitled to read it, whilst keeping it accessible to those who are legally entitled to read it, is not the same as removing a file from the department.

Present the current biased account simply in the name of being brief, and you'll quite rightly suffer a constant onslaught of editors trying to correct that bias. Present a comprehensive account, on the other hand, and you'll not only have less grounds for people to raise complaints, you'll also inform readers (who may have come here after reading only a one-sided account elsewhere, whenever someone chooses to selectively re-hash these events for partisan purposes) fully and fairly about the entire issue of the negative advertising in the 1998 campaign and the conclusion of the affair, making Wikipedia go up in their estimation. ☺ Uncle G 00:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review my previous remarks about WP:BLP as relates to Wilson. This section is more of a liability than an asset to the article. It should be removed. NeilinOz1 20:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Please read wikipedia policies before trying to cite them. Wikipedia does not shy away from controversy. Wikipedia includes material according to WP:V and WP:ATT. Not on whether it is negative or positive. Arbustoo 21:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This case was investigated by three different agencies and no arrests were made. Uncle G says that in order to deal with the topic fairly, we have to use nearly 300 words. It's impossible to include even 100 words without violating WP:UNDUE. There will still be abundant criticism arising from the "fired US attorneys" investigations. Kzq9599 00:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Uncle G, I thougtht there was a 1998 section already, but see that I was wrong. Sorry about that. I am inclined to agree with much of what you say, but I'm not going to get into it unless you show more willingness to work within the structure that has calmed this debate and address the specifics of the current draft. Please choose a less divisive and more informative heading for this section of discussion; nobody has advocated straying from the sources, but interpretations of what that means vary. -Pete 01:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion

NeilinOz1 (from the WP:BLPN noticeboard), plus Thatcher131 and Newyorkbrad (who are admins and clerks for the Arbitration Committee) have all said that the section needs to be removed. So the section needs to be removed. Kzq9599 02:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Thatcher131's concern focused on the husband, a concern I share. One objective of the rewrite was to take the focus away from the husband and its unfounded allegations and place them on the actions of Wilson. The other objective was to decrease the detail of the article which is in direct violation of WP:UNDUE, "depth of detail." I understand Uncle G's argument but I don't think even his lengthy section would tell the entire story. Editors will want to add detail to insure his take on the sources was complete. For instance, I think missing is that the prosecutor said, ""The file should not have been removed. That was improper." He said Wilson should have requested a judge or the Attorney General's Office to avoid a conflict of interest. And on and on.

But, I don't want Uncle G to think I don't appreciate his lectures. If he prefers his well-written but detailed narrative to mine which attempts to minimize the gravity of the controversy, I welcome both narratives be put up for consensus. I'd like to suggest the following "short version" incorporating the many comments:

In 1996, while working as the Secretary, Wilson moved a confidential file whose contents involved her husband from the Department's central location. When a local news station reported this, Wilson stated that she didn't "remove" the file. Her spokesman said her intent was to safeguard, not remove, its contents from illegal access. In 1998, Wilson's Democratic opponent alleged in a campaign ad that Wilson had abused her authority by moving the file, an allegation she vehemently denied.

I suggest this paragraph be put under the career heading between the first and second paragraphs, using only the 1998 citations. The citations well flesh out all of the needed details that Uncle G includes. Therefore 20:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've requested additional review of this issue on WP:ANI in light of kzq's banning as a sockpuppet and clarifying the intent of the editors. Therefore 21:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The article lede

The article lede should follow the examples of Democratic politicians who have received a lot of attention here, such as Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton. There isn't any mention of their many scandals in the ledes of their biographies, despite an impeachment and an admission of making false statements under oath. Therefore there should be no mention of a preliminary Ethics Committee investigation in the lede of this article. Kzq9599 03:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

The article lede makes no mention of this controversy. Please don't mix the two controversies in this discussion. Set up a new section entirely. This section is related only to the File movement. Therefore 03:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I set up a new section entirely. I started a new section with the headline, "The article lede." Kzq9599 03:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

The Clinton articles have spin outs due to their length. This was explained to you already. Arbustoo 03:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Then we should use Frank Ballance as a guide. No considerations about article length there. House member, just like Heather Wilson. The guy is currently serving a four-year federal prison sentence for a crime he committed while serving in public office. But there's no mention of that in the lede of the article. By the way, he's a Democrat. Kzq9599 03:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Kzq and Arbustoo, please refrain from discussing the Clinton articles. They are not relevant here. -Pete 03:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Clinton articles have received a lot of attention from experienced editors and administrators. For that reason, I believe they are a fair representation of what Wikipedia policy requires in biographies about living politicians. Kzq9599 03:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

But the Clinton articles are about a different subject. There may be similarities, but there are differences as well, and getting into a discussion of which is which will not serve the ultimate goal of improving this article. We are also experienced editors; let's put our reasoning front and center, and work exclusively off WP policies and guidelines. If editors from the Clinton pages want to come over and join us, they're perfectly welcome. -Pete 03:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh, Kzq has me on my soapbox again…….just when I decided it was bedtime. I believe by giving it more than just a cursory mention we are credence to allegation and suspicion that is over 11 years olds. Moreover, they were found to be at worst a miss understanding and most likely just a political red herring. The way it is worded now, from my standpoint is fine. And now ladies and gentlemen….Good Night and ado. Shoessss 03:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What allegations? She moved the file, denied it then admitted it. The DA criticized her for it, but concluded it wasn't illegal. Say it and move on. Arbustoo 03:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Significant current events are frequently found in the lede. Examples: Delta_Zeta, Duke Cunningham. To quote from WP:LS:

"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." [emphasis mine]

Therefore 05:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Duke Cunningham's conviction and prison sentence are just as much "current events" as Frank Ballance's. But Cunningham is a Republican and Ballance is a Democrat. Kzq9599 11:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Sounds like some work may need to be done on the Cunningham or Ballance pages. Those examples, however,don't help me assess what's on this page. The policy quote, however, does. I support the current introduction, mentioning the Fired Attorneys controversy, which has been a major focus in Congress and in the national media for well over a week, but not the Moved Documents. -Pete 15:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

kzq: See William J. Jefferson. It is difficult to draw partisan conclusions from a few examples. The Bill Clinton, in fact, does mention his charges of perjury, impeachment and subsequent acquittal in the lede. But, as User:Pete affirms, the WP policy is clear on this matter. Therefore 16:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys. Wikipedia is not here to smear people. If negative information of any kind is causing an edit war it's best not to include it WPBio 19:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

While there may have been an edit war in the past, I believe we have moved past it, and into a consensus-building mode. Your use of inflammatory language like "smear" will not help that process. Please contribute to our growing consensus, or at least refrain from fanning the flames. -Pete 19:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION: The above edit is WPBio's second ever edit. New user as of 26 March 2007. Arbustoo 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

WPbio is stirring up serious trouble[37] without consensus. C56C 22:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though there isn't any consensus one way or the other. WPbio isn't "stirring up serious trouble." He's expressing his opinion about a content dispute and we're working it out. He has a right to express his opinion. Kzq9599 01:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

As a long-time editor on the Hillary Rodham Clinton article, I can say that the reason that article's lede doesn't mention any of her "scandals" is that in none of them was she ever charged with anything, much less found guilty. Wasted Time R 22:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head. Heather Wilson hasn't been charged with anything, much less found guilty. Kzq9599 00:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

• Check user has confirmed KzQ is User:BryanFromPalatine. According to User talk:BryanFromPalatine's talk page he is a political operative.[www.freerepublic.com/~bryan/index?U=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freerepublic.com%2Ffocus%2Fmy%2F] See more about his banning and political fundraising and so on on that talk page. Arbustoo 14:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing tag

Now that the three user accounts have been blocked as being tied to a partisan source with disruptive behavior I am removing the tag as no one here has a problem. If I am wrong feel free to explain what issues you have. Arbustoo 01:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Back to the content

The page will become unprotected soon, and I'd like to make sure that we get a change that has wide support made as soon as possible. The big problem, as agreed by (I think) everyone, is that the current section about Wilson's re/moving a file names her husband in its heading. This is not relevant to the current article, and may violate Wikipedia policy as regards her husband.

I believe that everyone would agree that the following resolution is an improvement over the current state of the page. Some, like Uncle G, may want to go further - and I'm not saying that discussion should be cut short. I just want to make sure that where there is broad consensus, the change actually gets made.

The existing paragraph should be moved such that it is chronological in the summary of Wilson's career. It should have no heading at all, or if it does, the heading should be "1998 election."

Agreed? (Subject to continued discussion about further refinements) -Pete 00:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1) Yes, you can remove Hone's name from the heading. 2) Yes, you can merge the missing file section to the above part ONLY IF the current controversy is merged into the same section. Either all the criticism should be merged with her career or none of it. Arbustoo 01:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbustoo, (2) seems new to me, please help me understand. You're saying that if the missing files issue is moved to chronological order, then all controversies in the article must be treated in that fashion, correct? If so, I disagree – I think the separate section should be for the most notable controversies, not necessarily "all" controversies. But I don't feel terribly strongly about it.

If we were to keep the section where it is, what would you propose as an alternative heading, to stay in compliance with the policy on Biographies of Living Persons (as regards Wilson's husband)? -Pete 02:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The US attorney controversy belongs in the controversy section. The file issue either belongs in: 1) Career or 2) a new 1998 election section or 3) in the controversy section, above the US attorney controversy (to keep it in chronological order) without a heading. If a heading is required, then "DCYF file" is sufficient. Please note a newly suggested "short version" above under the "Conclusion" section. Therefore 02:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1) WP:Criticism says criticism sections should be avoided. 2) There are only two controversies. Thus, I don't see how one can be moved and not the other. You haven't given your reasoning behind moving the 1998 controversy and not the 2007 controversy. Arbustoo 22:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1) Controversy is different than criticism, at least as it is used in WP:Criticism. "Controversy" sections are common. This issue is ruled by Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. I quote:

[I]t can be handy to separate the non-controversial contributions from the controversial ones. First make the non-controversial edits and then the (suspected) controversial ones.

That is why articles separate out the controversial issues into their own section. 2) I'll summarize my reasons for moving to Career -- the details are above. I'm interested in lessening the gravity of this event because it pales in comparison to the US Attorney controversy, it fits chronologically in Career, it flows from the 1st paragraph and this is a compromise so that the paragraph not be excised. Therefore 06:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Controversy and criticism sections are common, and they should be avoided. Wilson making a phone call seems more trival then moving a file with sexual claims. Feel free to rewrite it to show otherwise. Arbustoo 20:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If consensus is that the US Attorney controversy is trivial in relation to the file movement issue, then we will end up with Uncle G's lengthy description that befits this relative importance. I would recommend that you edit down the US Attorney paragraphs accordingly in order to be even-handed. If the choice is between no mention vs. a lurid description, I choose no mention. On the other hand, if the choice is between no mention vs. a descriptive paragraph of the non-sensationalistic facts, I choose the latter. Therefore 20:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No consensus on that. Both issues are important, and apparently Arbustoo and I disagree on which is more important. As a separate matter, I disagree with using Uncle G's longer description. It's not only longer, but phrased in a more POV way. I think the current paragraph is reasonably good; if others feel there's a need for a lengthier description, I'd like to see another option besides that proposed by Uncle G. -Pete 18:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

Now that the page is unprotected, I changed the title to read "DCYF file." That was the consensus at least on that issue. Therefore 04:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. I don't really like having an obscure acronym in a section heading, but what you did is certainly an improvement, and supported by strong consensus. -Pete 18:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Would there be an objection if I replaced the current paragraph with this slightly expanded one that incorporates many of the discussions from above?

In 1996, while working as the Secretary, Wilson moved a confidential file whose contents involved her husband from the Department's central location. When a local news station reported this, Wilson stated that she didn't "remove" the file. Her spokesman said her intent was to safeguard, not remove, its contents from illegal access. In 1998, Wilson's Democratic opponent alleged in a campaign ad that Wilson had abused her authority by moving the file, an allegation she vehemently denied.

And then we can discuss from there? Or is it best to keep the paragraph as is? Therefore 20:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

♦I say keep Therefore. By the way, you have done a great job at mediation Therefore. Shoessss 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a couple concerns about that rendering. The first is a small structural issue - Secretary of what? The DCYF acronym needs to be spelled out somehow. Secondly, I think this version makes too much of the "move/remove" issue. The distinction is disingenuous; as I pointed out above, the followup question in the initial interview gave Wilson a chance to draw such a distinction, and she didn't do so; she simply said there was no truth whatsoever to the allegation. Attempts to make an issue of it after the fact are just spin, and don't belong in a brief summary of the issue.

I agree with Shoessss, your calm approach to this whole matter has been very helpful in stabilizing a contentious debate. -Pete 19:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)\\

Structural issue The paragraph was written on the assumption that it would appear as the 2nd paragraph under Career. In that context, the Secretary is clear from the end of the 1st paragraph. If we are keeping it in the controversy section, then the verbiage would be added.

Move v. Remove I understand what you mean -- it does sound like spin. I am working under the disadvantage of not having read dailykos nor have I seen the transcript of the TV show. I'm using the Albuquerque Journal references: The original story,[38] from 1996, the special election stories from 1998,[39][40] and the 2006 follow-up.[41]. We agreed not to use the latter as it only adds the unnecessary details concerning the file. I found no other articles on-line at the Journal. I looked at the Albequerque Tribune, but they only have articles back to 2005. I searched the New York Times for this time period and it only discusses that Wilson might have won lost the special election if not for the Green Party candidate (note: this controversy involved a special election in 1998 to fill a seat vacated by the death of her predecessor -- this issue did not come up in the 1998 general election). I searched Nexis/Lexis and only found articles about the election, not about this controversy. I searched KOTV but their archives do not go back that far.

So, what should the article rely upon to make the statement, "the followup question in the initial interview gave Wilson a chance to draw such a distinction, and she didn't do so." Give me a clean cite, a transcript or a Wikipeida-approved linked video, then it makes more sense. The original 1996 article has both the Republican prosecutor and Wilson use the word "remove" (hers in denial). The article text uses "move." The 1998 article about the ad controversy, says the TV interviewer asked Wilson,

"Did you order this, a record removed?" Wilson responded, "No."

If there were additional follow up questions where the interviewer gave her a chance to distinguish between move and remove, I don't have a good citation. It would be invaluable to have a transcript of that show.

Given all that, how should this sentence be rewritten? If it sounds like spin, and since it probably was in fact spin, then isn't it being reported accurately? I can change it to this, which is sourced:

In 1996, while working as the Secretary, Wilson moved a confidential file whose contents involved her husband from the Department's central location. When a local news station reported this, Wilson stated that she didn't "remove" the file. In a 1998, in a campaign ad, Wilson's Democratic opponent charged that Wilson lied with that statement and that her act was an abuse of power, an allegations she vehemently denied. Wilson's spokesman said her intent was to safeguard, not remove, its contents from illegal access.

Therefore 00:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I was just a voice here. You really ought to be thanking Pete -- he's the guy who coralled all the hissing cats into a methodical, structured discussion. I learned a lot. Therefore 00:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

NSA Warrantless Domestic Surveillance deletion

I deleted this paragraph:

Wilson's appeal for more oversight came nearly two months after existence of the terrorist spying program first became publicly known. Some believe that her late outcry became politically necessary due to the increased heat coming from Wilson's first formidable election opponent, Attorney General Patricia Madrid. In the days before Wilson spoke up, Madrid's campaign released both a fund-raising report showing Madrid had out-raised Wilson in the previous financial quarter and a poll putting the two candidates in a statistical tie.

for the following reasons:

• The sources (including the previous New York Times article used for this section, does not state that the appeal came "nearly two months" after the existence of the program.
• "Some believe" is not supported by the sources and is an examples of (disallowed) WP:weasel words.
• The sources indicate the amount that Madrid raised but not the amount Wilson raised. Any comparison of reports would have to conclusively indicate like-time periods. And a third party analysis would be preferred regardless as wikipedia prefers not to use primary sources:

  Articles need sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are insufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article.

• The sources do support the statement that Madrid and Wilson were in a tie. But to draw conclusions from this is a violation of WP:Original Research.

Find a reliable, verifiable source to support this paragraph, rewrite it using NPOV style (e.g., so-and-so said .....). Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 20:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This paragraph has been tagged for citation since March. Thank you for spelling out your reasons so clearly. -Pete 21:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

References

Voting patterns rewrite

This quotation fragment:

Wilson was reportedly "forced to change committees because she offended… Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, by siding with Democrats…. 'He told me I was too independent,' said Wilson." - Albuquerque Tribune, 1/27/05

is from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee: [42]. I suggest a rewrite using the online Albuquerque Journal instead. If someone would like to type in more of the Tribune article (i.e., sans ellipsis) that would help. How about this:

According to the Albuquerque Journal in 2004, Wilson exhibited "political independence" by voting to require the Bush administration to release the cost figures for his prescription drug plan, lecturing the Republican Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfield, about the importance of the Geneva Conventions during a hearing about the Abu Ghraib scandal and by opposing a move by House Republicans to protect Tom Delay from his fundraising scandal. Although critics said these were calculated moves to moderate her image for her upcoming election, she lost her seat on the House Armed Services Committee due to the actions of Republican Joe Barton, an ally of Delay.[43][44][45]

Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 02:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the part about the CQ stats and referenced it. The balance of this paragraph:

during her 2004 re-election campaign, Wilson ran an ad in which an individual said, "Heather Wilson is the most independent politician I have ever known…she is non-partisan." Additionally, she ran an ad in with John McCain who said, "Heather is also an independent thinker, and like me has been known to buck her own party…"

is also lifted verbatim from the above DCCC site. IMO, this should be removed as a Wikipedia:Copyright violations or rewritten with a better source than "2004 Wilson ad". I would rewrite it as:

Wilson often describes herself as an "independent".[46]

and leave it at that. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 02:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have access to Alb. Jrnl. archives, they're paid subscription only. But it seems problematic to say that "according to the Albuquerque Journal" she exhibited independence -- if the quote above is the basis for that, it's only "according to Wilson." The Journal merely reported her making the claim. -Pete 22:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the Alb. Jrnl. is free. Go for the "Trial Premium Pass", sit though a short (but irritating) video and you are in.

I got the "according to the AJ" from the headline:

1st District congresswoman willing to pay the price for her political independence

but I'm open to a change. How about this for the new paragraph:

According to the Congressional Quarterly, from 2001 to 2004, Wilson voted in agreement with the Republican Party at least 90 percent of the time. On the other hand, Wilson often describes herself as an "independent".[47] The Albuquerque Journal in 2004, reported on several instances where Wilson acted in contrast opposition to Republican interests by voting to require the Bush administration to release the cost figures for his prescription drug plan, lecturing the Republican Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfield, about the importance of the Geneva Conventions during a hearing about the Abu Ghraib scandal and by opposing a move by House Republicans to protect Tom Delay from his fundraising scandal. Although critics said these were calculated moves to moderate her image for her upcoming election, she lost her seat on the House Armed Services Committee due to the actions of Republican Joe Barton, an ally of Delay.[48][49][50]

Better? ∴ Therefore | talk 22:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's good, seems to capture all sides pretty well. I'd rewrite the last sentence without the "Although," which seems out of place. Maybe just two separate sentences, without any implied link? -Pete 22:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote it using your suggestion. Personally I think it makes these two sentences a bit awkward. I think it can be argued that, in fact, the sources were linking the two events. I believe this supports this:

To critics, Wilson's high-profile displays of political independence seemed like a calculated attempt to soften her image in Albuquerque's moderate 1st Congressional District. It's a charge Wilson vigorously disputes. But no matter what her motivation, Wilson's recent breaks with GOP leadership on sensitive issues appear to have come at a cost. Last week, she lost her seat on the House Armed Services Committee.

However, I don't hold a strong opinion on this matter and am happy with it as is. Thanks! I hope you're enjoying this weather as much as I. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I added "Later," as in "Later, she lost her seat...." That piece of connective tissue makes the paragraph more cohesive. ∴ Therefore | talk 01:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

References

Removal of Youtube link

To User:NNtw22 -- why did you remove the youtube external link for her testimony concerning the Viacom hearing? per WP:EL:

YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites: There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would be infrequent). See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate intellectual property rights.

Therefore, on what basis are you removing this link? Public hearings are public property. ∴ Therefore | talk 03:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Should we post a link to every video she appears in or just the ones you chose? There are hundreds of videos with her, likethis one. What are your reasons for including the video? I don't see any politicians featured articles with youtube links. George W. Bush doesn't have any neither does Ted Stevens. NNtw22 04:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point -- including hundreds of videos would be pointless (and against WP:EL standards). One clarification: I didn't include the video. Secondly, the standards for WP are not what is done on other pages. We could trade politician articles that include videos (e.g., George Allen (U.S. politician) has an EL with a video as does Carolyn McCarthy) and you can counter with articles that don't. In this case, the video relates directly to the section titled "Super Bowl halftime show controversy". Referring again to WP:EL:

There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.: ... Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?

In this case, arguably, this link provides backup for said section. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 04:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Ted Stevens article, in fact, has an EL that links to an audio recording. Are you objecting that the Wilson EL includes video along with audio? ∴ Therefore | talk 05:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The John F. Kennedy article has several multi-media ELs. ∴ Therefore | talk 05:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This youtube clip adds nothing to the article. Wilson appears in Congress nearly every weekday so there are plently of videos with her. I don't see why you want to include it. Leaving it there only encourages people to add more youtube clips that are anything of substance.

Yes, the Kennedy article does have video, but don't you see a difference between a killed PRESIDENT's inauguration and a Congresswoman's questioning at a house comittee meeting? C56C 16:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Adds nothing? The clip validates the quotation that is in the section "Super Bowl halftime show controversy" -- the video citation for the quotation. Just as in Ted Stevens, the audio clip is the citation for the section of the article that refers to his analogy of the internet as a series of tubes. Just as in the Carolyn McCarthy article, the video serves as the citation for the section of the article that highlights her mistaken definition of a "barrel shroud".

You are correct that it isn't valid to compare a president's article (slain or otherwise) to a congressperson's. I used the JFK article to counter the argument that the Bush article lacks multimedia external links. NNtw22 drew the conclusion that politicians' articles don't include multimedia links using the Bush article and (incorrectly) the Stevens article to buttress his argument. I picked JFK as an analogous (i.e., presidential) counter-example.

If this was a random video link unrelated to the text of the article, I would agree with you. Since it is "proof" of the entire quotation used in the article, it adds value. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are using it as a citation it belongs as a </ref/> not a WP:EL. C56C 18:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If I may go one step further: the article characterizes her comments, from third parties, as "grandstanding" and a "tempest in a teacup". Some sources for the event describe her voice as "cracking", some mockingly. Therefore, the video not only validates the actual quotation, but allows the reader to judge for themselves if these characterizations are accurate. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That opens the floor to people posting all types of videos for all types of people. If you leave this video in, its going to make for an interesting campaign, as videos get posted by different parties. C56C 18:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That is possible. I haven't seen that happen in either the Ted Stevens or the Carolyn McCarthy articles. If someone adds a video that is unrelated to a sourced section of the article, then I believe it should be removed. If someone adds a video and that is the only source of a section of the article, then I believe, again, that should be removed. Using only a primary source is not preferred Wikipedia policy. A third party source should be the arbiter whether a comment is notable. In this case, the section is sourced by a CNN article and there are many other reliable sources that made this notable. Therefore, the addition of the video serves to support the section, not an invitation for a flood of videos. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP violation

I have removed the second paragraph of the article lead again. It is a blazing WP:BLP violation. Don't even suggest that I might be a Republican trying to whitewash the article. I am a lifelong Democrat, I contribute regularly at DailyKos.com, and I voted for Barack Obama in the primary because Dennis Kucinich couldn't win.

The most recent indication was in April 2008, when a spokesman from the House Ethics Committee said that he was unaware of any ongoing investigation against Wilson. That is sourced reliably. We cannot claim that she is under investigation. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a quick Google search revealed this source which states she is the subject of an "ongoing ethics probe." This took me 2 seconds to find. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

K4T, I assumed good faith on your part regardless of whether you are in truth a Democrat, Republican or Monarchist; there isn't a need to assert this preemptively or defensively as it is completely irrelevant and equally impossible to verify. We are all encyclopedists striving to improve the article. As such, please discuss changes here in order to reach consensus, a method I'm sure you have learned at the Obama page. The lede states, reliably, that she is under preliminary investigation which is a different animal than a formal investigation. The clerk explicitly neither confirmed nor denied that a formal investigation was on-going but "hadn't been informed of one". I accordingly modified the lede to reflect that a formal investigation has not been confirmed. The Hill article used in the "Fired US attorneys" section indicates that the Justice Department is also investigating. As for Scjessey's source, The Public Record isn't a reliable source, which in this context is a published, mainstream newspaper/magazine known for fact checking. I believe we can modify the text to reflect more clearly the status of the investigation and shrink it to a level of a mention. I see no need to delete it entirely as mention of a controversy is allowable by WP:LEDE. May I suggest changing the text from:

Currently, she is under a preliminary investigation by the House Ethics Committee over an alleged inappropriate contact with the United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico by inquiring, shortly before an election in which she faced a stiff challenge, on the status of a corruption investigation involving a Democratic politician. However, an official investigation has not been confirmed.

to read:

Beginning in 2007, Wilson was under a preliminary investigation by the House Ethics Committee and the Justice Department over an alleged inappropriate contact with a United States Attorney. As of April 2008, a formal investigation by the House committee was unconfirmed.

Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 14:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Therefore -- the only thing that would make me suspect inappropriate editing is the unnecessary, strong, and unverifiable statement of political persuasion. The phrasing of this content clearly requires some attention, and I thank Kossack4Truth for raising the issue; beyond that, who we are or what we think of each other is not germane to the discussion.

A also agree with Therefore's rewrite, with one exception -- the last sentence is a bit awkward, making it sound like "unconfirmed" is a status of the investigation, rather than a statement about what is known. One possibility is being just a touch more specific there: "As of 2008, a spokesman for the committee refused to comment on the existence of an investigation."

But looking at the source, it doesn't strike me as something worthy of including in the lead at all. The spokesman, who is unidentified, is clearly protecting the committee's right to conduct its affairs without revealing every detail; based on that statement, it would entirely plausible that the committee simply didn't inform its spokesman of an investigation, specifically to protect its own ability to proceed without interference from the public.

The statement gives us no new information about the purported investigation. Furthermore, the source publication clearly regards it that way; the New Mexican did not base its article on the statement, but rather buried it deep in the article, without much comment. I believe that using this statement as a reason to alter the lead section of this article in any way would be a mistake. -Pete (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I recommend changing the lede to read:

Beginning in 2007, Wilson was under a preliminary investigation by the House Ethics Committee and the Justice Department over an alleged inappropriate contact with a United States Attorney.

and changing the text of the article from:

However, in April 2008 a spokesperson for the House Ethics Committee said that he could neither comment on or verify the existence of an investigation of Wilson: "I haven't been informed of one."

to read, per Pete,:

As of 2008, a spokesman for the committee refused to comment on the existence of an investigation.

∴ Therefore | talk 15:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the article history, there are a few things that trouble me. First, there was the obvious and inexcusable BLP violation against Heather Wilson's husband, Jay Hone. Second, there was the discovery that several sentences of the text were lifted directly from the partisan anti-Wilson talking points of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Third, there's this latest failure to notice that there might not be any ongoing investigation at all. So I hope you understand why I might be a little concerned. We must not merely avoid bias. We must avoid the appearance that we might be biased. Play it safe, and keep this out of the lead of the article. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Very curious analysis. Please don't make edit changes while there is an ongoing discussion here. You should instead participate in the above points vs. making declarative statements of dubious value and taking unilateral actions. Neither are in the spirit of Wikipedia. You have a history of contentious editing, violating the spirt and the letter of Wikipedia. Please, here, instead participate in the process. Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 11:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing "curious" about it. There have been three major screw-ups on this article, and all three made Wikipedia look like it's been annexed by MoveOn.org. If one of these mistakes had been in Heather Wilson's favor, I would certainly be more willing to give previous editors on this article greater deference. A direct quote from WP:BLP: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." The emphasis is in the original; I didn't add it.

The most recent reliable source cannot confirm that there is a current investigation. I notice there was no response to my Talk page post last night, but the instant I started editing the article again this morning, here you are in a heartbeat, reverting me. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, K4T, as you all to well know from your experiences at Obama, the objective is to seek consensus on the talk page. I'm really not going to combat you here. I will ask for admins support. I don't know what you mean by no response since this entire discussion in this section was in response so I'm flummoxed by your point. I revert you because you refuse to participate in this dicussion except with antagonism. ∴ Therefore | talk 12:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you profess to be familiar with the discussion at the Obama article, I'm sure you're aware that at Wikipedia, we don't do "Criticism and controversy" sections any more. I'll be back with a quote from Jimmy Wales on the topic. He's not the god of Wikipedia. Policy, such as WP:BLP, is the god of Wikipedia. But Jimbo's opinion seems to carry a lot of weight around here. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern right now is with your contentious editing and talk page practices. The issue here is whether the controversy should be mentioned in the lede. You revert without participating in the discussion. I am asking for admins help since I don't see you making a good faith effort to avoid edit warring or participating in a collegial manner on the talk page. ∴ Therefore | talk 12:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, [criticism and controversy sections] are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." - Jimmy Wales [51]

I will again cordially invite you to review WP:BLP: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." The emphasis is in the original; I didn't add it. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've requested admins support at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kossack4Truth. ∴ Therefore | talk 13:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: I came here from WP:BLPN#Heather Wilson. I am concerned by edits that re-add this text. My concerns are:

1. The information presented misrepresents the information in the source provided.
2. Even if it was adequately sourced, "preliminary investigation ... over an alleged inappropriate contact" is of, at best, of unclear importance and could be garden-variety political gossip.
3. Even if points 1 and 2 were addressed, putting this in the lede clearly causes NPOV problems.

Given the above, I would say that any edit which removed the problematic text (or substantially similar text) is not subject to the three-revert-rule. I certainly would not block any user who removed it regardless of how many times they did so. In contrast, repeatedly re-adding this obvious violation of the biographies of living persons policy is likely to result in enforcement of the policy by blocks and/or page protection. CIreland (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is getting silly. It's obvious we have some work to do in finding the right way to treat this matter; but the personal back-and-forth is not going to help us find the right balance. There's no reason to talk about blocking editors, nobody is acting in bad faith. If we have emerging revert war, we can just protect the article while we discuss it. And there is no "obvious" BLP violation, as every fact is supported by a source. Again, we may need to work on how we present those facts, how we phrase it, and how the article's structured; but it's not like anybody's seeking to defame Rep. Wilson. -Pete (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Not everything inserted has been supported by a source - this is one of the key problems. CIreland (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm grateful that CIreland could help out with this matter from the WP:BLP noticeboard. The input of a previously uninvolved, well-established editor is welcome. It is also good to see that no one here wants to defame Rep. Wilson or her husband. I would like to see this preliminary investigation matter stay out of the article lead, at least until we can verify with a reliable source that an investigation is still ongoing in July 2008. That would be the least that BLP would require. Once we've verified that, we can discuss the NPOV implications that CIreland mentioned. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that CIreland's input will be helpful, but he/she has taken a couple positions that need a closer look. First, what -- specifically -- is the misrepresentation? Second, the conclusion that this issue does not belong in the lead section is premature. It may be that the sources currently cited don't make the best case for the item being discussed in the lead, but that it does belong there. We should look at that dispassionately, and not prejudge the best result. I don't know whether or not it belongs in the lead; I'm taking a fresh look at the news coverage of this issue. From what I've read thus far, there are some commentators who assert that Wilson's connection to this issue is the cause of her political downfall. David Iglesias has said that she is "damaged goods," a NY Times reporter has stated without equivocation that they talked to each other. The Washington Post reported that she called Iglesias, and that the call itself appeared to run afoul of House ethics rules regardless of its content. This article in The Hill is relevant. I'm still reading.

But Kossack's suggestion that an active 7/08 investigation is the appropriate standard for inclusion in the lead is arbitrary. The standard would be whether the issue was a significant event in the life of Heather Wilson. We have yet to determine conclusively whether or not that is the case. -Pete (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting note -- according to Iglesias (who, obviously, is an interested party), there were five ongoing investigations relating to the issue as of May 2008. [52] -Pete (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The most specific coverage I've found stating that the outcome of the Wilson/Madrid race was the motivating factor behind political meddling with Iglesias' investigation: [53] -Pete (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the beginning of the section on this issue, trying to make it clearer how the issue relates to Wilson. Please take a look at what I did. -Pete (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Jennings"

From the article: "In 2009, it was revealed that Iglesias was fired after an email from Wilson was circulated among Republican leaders that complained about Iglesias' lack of public corruption prosecutions in the run up to the midterm elections and then attached attaching a report about an FBI investigation of Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) as a point of contrast.[1] Then Jennings forwarded those messages to Rove and complained that Iglesias had been "shy about doing his job on [[[Patricia] Madrid|[Patricia] Madrid]]," Wilson's Democratic opponent in the 2006 congressional race.[2]"

Who's Jennings? The name appears nowhere else in the article. People need to be introduced with a full name somewhere before you start referring to them by their surname.

-24.240.73.77 (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- seems to me that the U.S. Attorney section was appropriately shortened following the conclusion of the case, and Scott Jennings' name was eliminated from the article entirely. -Pete (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Heather Wilson/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article is getting there, but needs some more citation (campaign ads and Janet Jackson controversy need work in particular). Needs a through look-over in terms of focus - is it concentrating too much on her controversies? Edofedinburgh 14:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 17:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Heather Wilson. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sdsmt.edu/News/Mines-Family-Welcomes-Wilson-Family/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110407011837/http://womenincongress.house.gov/member-profiles/profile.html?intID=256 to http://womenincongress.house.gov/member-profiles/profile.html?intID=256
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sos.state.nm.us/Main/Elections/1998/Special/Special.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sos.state.nm.us/Main/Elections/1998/98General/rsult000.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523075823/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/05/delays_pac_closes_shop.html to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/05/delays_pac_closes_shop.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012162800/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/marisa_taylor/story/15698.html to http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/marisa_taylor/story/15698.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406050648/http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/jul/31/house-ethics-panel-talking-iglesias/ to http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/jul/31/house-ethics-panel-talking-iglesias/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812141614/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cdirectory/browse.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cdirectory/browse.html
• Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20120314170523/http://www.sos.state.nm.us/08PrimResults/StatewidePrim08.pdf with https://web.archive.org/web/20161022090124/http://www.sos.state.nm.us/08PrimResults/StatewidePrim08.pdf on http://www.sos.state.nm.us/08PrimResults/StatewidePrim08.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heather Wilson. 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/20110927173450/http://www.lcv.org/media/press-releases/LCV-Names-Next-7-Dirty-Dozen-Members.html to http://www.lcv.org/media/press-releases/LCV-Names-Next-7-Dirty-Dozen-Members.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

More current image of Pres. Heather Wilson

I nominate the image of Heather Wilson from her President's message for the lede. It is more up-to-date than her Secretary of the Air Force portrait, gives an impression of the Bhutanese architecture of the UTEP campus (including some flagpoles for prayer flags), and even shows some mountains of the region in the background. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)