Talk:John McCain 2008 presidential campaign

Wrap up — this grew inactive; there was no consensus to merge; the bio article on her still exists. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

We have an article at Vicki Iseman. I have proposed it should be merged here, as she is unremarkable outside of gossip in this campaign, interested parties may wish to comment on the talk page of that article.--Doc^g 20:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oppose: One of Wikipedia's strengths is immediate access to breaking news, and Iseman is real news. Readers want details of her life that illuminate access to political power. Time will tell whether her entry bears removing. Immediately consigning her identity to the heading John McCain lobbyist controversy is premature and does a disservice to readers.˜˜˜˜maestrodad, February 24, 2008

Support: I do not believe that Vicki Ismeman is all that notable sans the John McCain controversy. One controversy does not make a person notable, and I feel that the content can be merged here with no consequence. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your argument: She is not notable WP:INN. Why? She wouldn't be notable without McCain? Where is that policy/guideline? Brian McNamee is one of 1000s of valid articles where person X wouldn't be notable without person Y.

Your recommendation: Merge. Could you state what you want merged? All of the text concerning Iseman to be included in this article? If so, then I can see your argument. If merging = redirecting = de facto deletion with little carry forward of information, then this process is already happening at the AfD. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Support: Presently a textbook Wikipedia:BLP1E, barring future events. Quatloo (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could you clarify your understanding of WP:BLP1E? It reads: "such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election". Is your argument that she falls under this category? Are you arguing that the information in the Iseman article, personal, career, clients, lobbying activities, be merged into a section in this article to provide the reader with her background? WP:BLP1E makes these exceptions: "unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy", which it woruld, or "sources have written primarily about the person" which in the Iseman article, is the case. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Support: She's not notable on her own unless she starts writing a book about it, or making the daytime talk show circut or makes news beyond this McCain thing (which may or may not be true anyway)Mr mark taylor (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Books? Oprah? Where is that requirement in WP:BIO? I see:

is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

Where does she fail the test of notability? Should we have waited for Brian McNamee to appear on Ellen before including an article? What is the relevance whether the "thing" is true or not? Which part are you referring to? The ethical conflicts or the report that two advisers feared that she was romantically involved? The source doesn't state she was romantically involved. Regardless, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. And the details of the controversy are given only a mention in Iseman. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Most of the material is now at John McCain lobbyist controversy, however attempts to redirect the so called "biography" are being resisted and reverted. Active support welcome.--Doc^g 20:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Let me put forward an alternative framing: a merge discussion at Talk:Vicki Iseman#Merge this with John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 was initiated by the good doctor who then participated in the discussion along with TS -- no mention that a parallel discussion was occurring here. Doc failed to come to consensus. He and TS then attempted to redirect it here (i.e., deleting all the information on the page, including the biographical and controversial material and not redirecting to John McCain lobbyist controversy which didn't even exist yet) on their own and were, yes, resisted as consensus had not yet been reached contrary to consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. Doc justified his actions by saying, uncivilly: "We remove them, until/unless there's a consensus to keep them - a few politically motivated users on a talk page is not a consensus." As one of the editors who worked diligently to add in criticism of The New York Times and balance throughout the article, I presume he believes that I'm a conservative and hence doesn't have the right to participate in consensus. I, respectively, disagree. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Now see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman--Doc^g 21:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Support merging the article on Ms. Iseman to the article John McCain lobbyist controversy, which is a more appropriate arget than this article. This merge proposal should be terminated in favor of a proposal to merge to that article. Edison (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would agree, (as a compromise position) to merge the Iseman article to John McCain lobbyist controversy as long as merging means, well, merging. That all the salient biographical material is shifted to this article and "Vicki Iseman" is redirected. Doesn't seem necessary and personally, as the Iseman article stands, I think it is fine. WP:BLP says:

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events ... biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

This article is properly sourced, pared down and entirely neutral. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Question Oppose (plus my rationale for action) Why wasn't a similar "vote" conducted at Vicki Iseman? I want to make clear I'm not invested deeply in the "so-called" biography, I was just an editor studying speedy deletion policy when I saw Vicki Iseman get speedied twice in a few minutes, and I clicked on the still extant talk page just as an editor started rewriting. Still disinterested but intrigued, I googled and found a few links, and decided if the page still existed, that we'd build it responsibly, to provide rocky ground for vandals (just like I normally try to do in 19th century biographies, my field of interest; I edit BLP pages rarely). I have resisted, but not reverted the redirect, because no consensus had been reached at Talk:Vicki Iseman (as a matter of fact I was unaware of this discussion until hours after the AfD was nominated; it might have been linked at the appropriate section on talk to gather consensus of apparent outliers like myself and User:Therefore). I agree 100% in moving the controversy stuff to the John McCain lobbyist controversy space, and I assert the bare bio stub which remains after is well-cited and contains very little of harm to the pedia or to the subject. In its current version, the article represents exactly what most bio stubs represent: a good-faith attempt to depict a life based on reputable sources. BusterD (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your question seems to ignore the fact that the discussion was conducted at Vicki Iseman, and Doc's announcement asks people to conduct it there. Just to make it plain: there is no vote, and those who think there is a vote are wrong. --TS 23:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Your statement seems to ignore the fact that" you and the Doc created and participated in the discussion at Vicki Iseman, giving no indication that a parallel effort was made here. I wish that your answer to the merge question at the Iseman talk page, was more than "Yes. --TS 20:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)"; might give you more credibility about not being a vote. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if I sounded a bit terse (and used the v-word), but as I was reading the discussion, consensus there for merging seemed quite mixed, yet the redirects were applied anyway. As I've said there, it appeared to me that page consensus was reached here to redirect the page. I don't doubt for a moment the importance of experienced page editors here in deciding whether to absorb material of any kind. I'm glad that Doc called my bluff and nominated Iseman to AfD. I have confidence that consensus will resolve this dispute. I reserve the right, however, to agree with arguments to review deletion later. I suspect that eventually en.wikipedia will have an article on the subject; I just want to make sure if so, it's a fair article. So we're all doing the right thing. BusterD (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia consensus is based in policy. If a bunch of us one day decided,for instance, that the content of a given article must never be sold for profit, that would not countermand Wikipedia policy and would not prevail even if a thousand or so of us said that it should. There were some opinions compatible with existing policy and they prevailed. --TS 00:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

On the other hand, Wikipedia policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it. Thank you all for your indulgence. I'll now return myself to my normal 19th century programming. BusterD (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

It appears, given the extended discussion, that the previous repeated attempts to merge were premature and aren't supported by consensus at either talk page; neither does it seem likely as of this timestamp that either the Vicki Iseman or John McCain lobbyist controversy will face deletion. All this written knowing that any crow to be eaten might eventually be gnawed by me. BusterD (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose I oppose the merge for the reasons I specified at Talk:Vicki_Iseman --Unflappable (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose For all the reasons stated at Talk:Vicki Iseman#Merge this with John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman. Unless this merge proposal is to actually merge the two texts together so that the information on the Iseman page is preserved, then this is a third attempt at a de facto and de jure AfD. Let the AfD take its course as this is the proper avenue for deletion. Here are my specific reasons for keeping the Iseman page as is: The article provides background personal and career information on Iseman referenced from other sources that are not in the two other pages. Iseman is a public figure and now notable per WP:BIO. WP:BLP1E addresses the case when "relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election" is discussed which is not the case here. Paula Jones and Brian McNamee similarly are "one event" articles but have risen to notability. WP:COATRACK relates to "a cover for a tangentially related bias subject." The controversy receives only a mention in the Iseman article. There is no bias nor cover. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

If Afd decides not to delete the page, a consensus to merge may still be constructed here.--Doc^g 17:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

That is true -- and it may still occur at the Iseman talk page. Or at AfD 2 or or at John McCain lobbyist controversy etc. There are many avenues an indefatigable editor may take to delete this page. What would be helpful is if you could define what you mean by merging -- de facto deletion or do you have a concrete proposal on preserving her biographical and professional information? ∴ Therefore | talk 17:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

A merger means we redirect the page to the target. How much of it's text goes on the target is matter for those working on the target to decide. Whatever is put on initially can be increased, or decreased over time. The information on the merged article remains accessible in the history for those who wish to use it. A merge has no static effect, it is entirely a variable editorial decision as to what to include.--Doc^g 17:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

That is your take of the merge process. From WP:MM:

You may find that some or all of the information to be merged is already in the destination page. That is fine; you can feel free to delete the redundant information and only add the new stuff [emphasis mine].

If you are proposing to bring forward the personal and career details of the Iseman page, then you are recommending a merger. I'm all for a merger discussion as long as we are actually stating that the "stuff from the Iseman page be brought forward -- at this point, there is little redundancy. It is best left where it is per WP:BLP:

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

The bio is pared, sourced, neutral and on-topic (re: Iseman). ∴ Therefore | talk 18:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, many others seem to think a merger is better.--Doc^g 18:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that is true. But not a consensus. You think merger = redirect. It doesn't. Redirection is one of the technical elements of the process. Merging means combining the text of the two articles to avoid redundancy and not an end run around AfD. Adding Iseman's bio details here wouldn't make much sense. It would make more sense to merge (*merge*) to the John McCain lobbyist controversy. Even so, I see no problem with the bio as it stands since it follows the guidelines of WP:BLP as noted above -- sourced, neutral and on-topic and falls within the guidelines of WP:BLP1E (sources independent of event and too much to merge into the event article).∴ Therefore | talk 18:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

You've stated your case, let's see what emerges. I'm happy with a merge to either the campaign or controversy article, indeed I agree the controversy one is perhaps better. And yes, we can indeed move all the information there. But from that point it will be for those working on that article to decide what to do with it, and to trim it if they wish. A merge (even if it is only a redirect) is not a deletion, for the simple reason that it can be reversed at any time by any editor. It is just like any other edit, anyone can change it, but if controversial one should seek talk page support to do or reverse. It is not an end run about AfD.--Doc^g 18:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

CommentHere's another one; and they both do look,quack and walk like a de facto and de jure AfD, in my opinion. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oppose for the reasons stated on the AfD. Important information about this newly-notable individual - who will continue to surface in prominent places in the major media for a good while to come, and will likely play an individual role in future events - will be lost in a merge, as always. People will be looking to the encyclopedia for specific biographical, past, and career information on this woman who has suddenly been catapulted to prominence. Everything from her birthdate to her lobbying history will be sought out specifically, and that is the sort of individual information that is best covered in a biographical article. Mr. IP (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oppose. The Iseman events happened long before this campaign and belongs in the main article. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Strong Support - She's not notable except as part of the New York Times's attack article on McCain. Enigma ^msg! 03:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose merge. Despite all the statements that the Iseman bio is a coatrack, the article, if one actually bothers to read it, is about her career as a lobbyist as it should be. The "controversy" discussed here is a minor part of Iseman's career and I think it is far more respectful to have a full biography for her, covering her real importance (i.e. her lobbying activities), than to reduce her importance to a single, minor, and fictitious event by redirecting to this article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • In fact, I consider the "controversy" so "minor" and "short-term news story" that I have supported merging THAT article here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose Should we merge every person's whose primary notability related to the McCain campaign into that article? His campaign staff? Wife? This is one merger that really doesn't seem very rational. Dgf32 (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Strong Oppose. It's not just gossip: she is a central figure in what was for at least a few days a major news story. And the original story in the New York Times was credible and well-researched. Ironically, if the story wasn't politically controversial, no one would be calling for its deletion. The mere fact that so many are calling (for political rather than encyclopedic reasons) for its deletion proves that she is a figure of enough significance to warrant at least a small article. (I might add by the way, that Obama's infamous acquaintance Tony Rezko still has his own article, as do numerous individuals associated negatively with Hillary Rodham Clinton.) Timothy Horrigan (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wrap up — this grew inactive; there was no consensus to merge; the lobbyist controversy article still exists. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article prior to blanking and redirection

This event was too abruptly made into its own article. The media has already stopped covering it almost entirely. No major consequences occurred because of the Times' article. John McCain denied the allegations the same day; the media made a fuss for two days about the Times' credibility and John McCain's lobbying record; the controversy ended. It's not like, for examples, the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal or the Burr-Hamilton duel, which had a marked history and the events went on for a marked period of time and had lasting ramifications. Unless this story later proves to become a much bigger and important aspect of the 2008 elections, it should only remain as a subsection under McCain's presidential run and in the 2008 U.S. elections in general. --Mbenzdabest (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree, and was trying to get that across in the AfD debate. I dont believe that the full concensus was keep, but those decision are made above my head. I'm not doubting that this is a notable event, however it can be summed up easily in 4 or 5 sentances, and put into the main candidacy article. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 01:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Strongly Oppose. This merge proposal is Forum shopping.

The article just went through an AfD which had a 22-8 majority vote for it to be kept separate and not abbreviated nor merged. I actually prefer it to be in the main BLP but let's please just accept the strong consensus. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Support - per what I said above. Enigma ^msg! 03:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
• Support - what is with people wanting to keep the controversy article? This is a presidential candidate, we need to be especially careful. Will ^(talk) 13:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
• Support per my earlier comment referring to New York Times' own ombudsman's criticism concerning the insubstantiality of the piece run by the newspaper. [1] --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, in which there was a clear consensus to retain the article, and an administrative judgment that the article did not constitute a WP:BLP violation. Furthermore, the extensive coverage in third-party reliable sources cited in the article clearly establishes a presumption of the notability of this topic per the general notability guideline. John254 17:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose (1) This is procedurally wrong: Consensus to keep was already obtained at the AfD. This is forum shopping. Wikipedia editors should not be forced into going from forum to forum because some don't like the result. (2) Enough has already been written about this incident to establish that it is worth longer treatment than the section of an article can provide: (a) The issue of New York Times journalistic judgment is worth a section itself; (b) the Washington Post stated that it did an independent investigtion and came up with the same essential findings, so the basic facts of the case have reliable sourcing; (c) The more unreliable insinuation that there was an affair is not the only issue here concerning McCain's judgment: Simply being seen so often with this lobbyist (an attractive woman later able to boast about her access to McCain and who was a lobbyist with matters before McCain's committee and who did apparently get McCain's support urging the FCC to take a vote) should be explained in the detail that an article affords and a section doesn't, because (d) this is a campaign for the most important public office in the world, and a serious encyclopedia with our breadth needs to cover in detail the important matters that voters may use in deciding how to vote. No BLP conceerns that are present here override (d). None. Not one. We can revisit deletion or merger after the campaign is over. Before election day, we should lean toward inclusion.Noroton (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
• oppose is a separate topic that deserves large discussion. To put it in here is essentially whitewashing for both McCain and the New York Times. Claims that the Times ombudsman criticized the Times article misses the point; that aspects of the NYT coverage were problematic doesn't mean this isn't a valid topic (indeed, it might almost make sense to retitle it something like the Mccain-New York Times lobbyist controversy to reflect the Times' role). Scepter/Will's comment above that this is a presidential candidate and therefore we need to be careful is correct but misses two points: First, we need to be careful about all content related to BLPs or anything similar - that isn't an argument by itself to delete articles. Second, we cannot cover this well in a short section in the general campaign article and to cover it with the appropriate level of detail requires a separate article. To do so otherwise could be unfair to a variety of participants, possibly including the Times, McCain, the reporters, and Iseman. Furthermore, there has been discussion about merging the Iseman artciel into lobbyist article which would make the section here unreasonably long by far in an already long article. Let's not go against a clear AfD consensus JoshuaZ (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
• This matters: From the "Well-known public figures" section of WP:BLP: If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. This can also be used as a justification for having a separate article, if important enough. Tne NYT and Washington Post investigations showed we have reliable sourcing that there was significant concern about McCain's relationship with the lobbyist (whatever the nature of that relationship), that McCain admitted to something "inappropriate" (either an affair or perpetuating the appearance of a conflict of interest -- especially given his image, that could be considered inappropriate). This is an appropriate matter for voters to consider when judging the character and judgment of McCain, and it deserves nuanced treatment not available in the short length of a section. This was basically Bill Keller's justification of the article to the NYT public editor, and it's a good defense of our own article. (It happens to be a lousy defense of an article on the lobbyist.) Noroton (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
• Strong support - merits a mention at the McCain campaign page but hardly requires its own article at this stage. Eusebeus (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

If this level of coverage in third party reliable sources doesn't establish a presumption of notability per the general notability guideline, then what would? John254 00:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose merge. Merging the content here would probably result in undue weight. The controversy itself is notable, with the underlying reporting being discussed and criticized in secondary sources. It's not just a part of McCain's campaign; it is a significant event in its own right, with plenty of reliable sources to meet verifiability standards. John McCain lobbyist controversy should remain a separate article, and (as per WP:BLP1E) Vicki Iseman should redirect to that article. *** Crotalus *** 00:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose merge or redirect - I've pledged to stop watching and stay out of this pagespace (because I admitted inherent bias as a page contributor on Vicki Iseman), but after both VI and John McCain lobbyist controversy survived AfDs, and both redirected and then put on DRV, I must state (again) that I've need no satisfactory consensus established on any page which indicates a community desire to merge or redirect. This additional effort to muster consensus, while I'm sure is undertaken in good faith, appears to many besides myself as forum shopping. BusterD (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

  I wouldn't consider this to be forum shopping; DRV wasn't the correct venue for this discussion and I recommended that this discussion take precedence. --Coredesat 02:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

  The issue here is not forum shopping with respect to the deletion review for John McCain lobbyist controversy (which was closed without a decision with regard to the question of redirection), but forum shopping to overturn the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, in which there was a clear consensus to retain, not delete, and not redirect, the article. John254 02:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for that clarification, John254. BusterD (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose Merge Cortalus and Norton make very good points. Strong consensus at recent AfD, and no BLP violation so far as I can see. faithless (^speak) 01:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
• Support merge. The event is due to a single article in the NYT, which has been so thoroughly refuted that the presence of a huge article is distracting in the context of McCain's campaign. It is a minor part of the McCain campaign, and it is a minor part of Iseman's life (which is why I will be opposing merging the Iseman bio to this article in a minute.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose this merge. The separate article on the controversy should remain. The merge should be the Vicki Iseman page to the John McCain lobbyist controversy page. The issue is notable, but of the two involved participants, only one (the one who is the major-party nominee for president) is noteworthy. Horologium (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose The article is long enough as it is. Yahel Guhan 06:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply