Jump to content

Talk:Helen Jones-Kelley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Person v. Election

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article is not about Jones-Kelley, it is about Joe the Plumber. 75.1.249.13 (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No merge The Jones-Kelley article is about Jones-Kelley. Her, and Joe Wurzelbacher are two different people with two different career paths. Jones-Kelley holds a notable position herself. The intersection of her job and the Werzelbacher is an appropriate subject to discuss on the Jones-Kelley page - it concerns her job. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No merge While this article needs fleshing out, much of it would not be relevant to the JtP article, which, itself, has been the subject of BLP disputes. J-K is a public official and is actually, by WP standards, more "notable" than a person who is not a public official. Collect (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No merge I think instead that much of the material about Ms. Jones-Kelley on the Joe the Plumber page should be brought over to this page. Joe's page can contain information related to him (e.g., his interaction with BHO, his actions on behalf of JSM, his company and back taxes). Helen's page can contain information related to her (e.g., her position as a public official, her decision to approve the use of state computer databases to search for information about Joe). The resulting investigations into her conduct belong on this page and have nothing to do with Joe the Plumber (aside from his being a target/victim of her actions). Hoovercleanerupper (talk)

No merge. This page is a seperate entity worthy of its own entry. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No merge. But I'll disagree with Collect on notability. JW/JtP is far more notable now - this bureaucrat is in the news mainly because her computers were used in researching JW's records.Mattnad (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened up a discussion on the BLP noticeboard regarding this article. If anyone would like to offer a defense of this article on the grounds that it is not a violation of WP:BLP1E, please offer it there. Gamaliel (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied and stated how WP:BLP1E does not apply. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No merge. I don't understand how merging would be justified as things stand currently. --VictorC (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There appears to be consensus here to not merge. If any editor feels otherwise, this is the place to share your opinions. Presently, there has been no consensus to do so, other than the nominator. As such, I will remove the merge tag, recognizing that the consensus may change in the future. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No merge Agree that these are two different subjects, each independently notable, that just happen to intersect on one specific point, the database lookups. Each deserves a separate article, with cross links or mentions as appropriate. Further, BLP1E does not apply to either one. Endorse merge tag removal. — Becksguy (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent deletion of content

[edit]

As Jones-Kelley is a public figure, I believe that the following report by editors of The Plain Dealer is an important detail for the article concerning her involvement in the Joe Wurzelbacher Ohio government database searches. Following is the comment that was removed. "The editors of The Plain Dealer have reported that, “according to the Federal Election Commission, Jones-Kelly is a $2,500 donor to the Obama Victory Fund.”" [1] Should this be included? Any and all comments are appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added that comment back in about the same time you posted this discussion item, but also invited further discussion. The deleted material was published in a major Ohio newspaper, and notes a matter of public record. There currently is more information, about HJK's involvement in the public records search, on the Joe the Plumber page than on HJK's page. I think the material that I added back is relevant to the section it is included in, and should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoovercleanerupper (talk • contribs) 01:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I re-removed it; verification is not the issue here. The inclusion of the factoid implies a particular conclusion; we are encyclopaedia we don't do implication; find a source that says explicitly what you are trying imply or leave it out. CIreland (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not "original research" as you say in your deletion note. It cites a newspaper story. As the entry originally existed, I had gone to OpenSecrets.org and searched HJK's name and found $2,500 in donations to Obama. I paired that up with the $2,300 limit on individual contributions, and suggested that she had exceeded this limit. THAT's original research, and it probably should have been deleted, like it was, by more experienced editors. I think that the Plain Dealer quote is a fair citation. You suggest that I need to find a "source that says explicitly what you are trying to imply or leave it out." The only direct evidence of HJK's political motives in conducting the searches and/or defending the actions of her staff is in her head. What kind of source are you looking for? Would a newspaper story that cites a Republican accusing her of political motives be sufficient? That would be a source that "says explicitly." I will not revert the deletion for now, but I think this issue should be discussed further. --Hoovercleanerupper (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this requires further discussion, although I do beleive it should be included as it is not "original research," as far as The Plain Dealer article that was removed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I meant: A newpaper story that says the action was politically motivated would be sufficient to be included as an allegation. Of course, if there are contradictory interpretations, we should reflect those. CIreland (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article already includes her defense, where she says, oh, no, we search confidential records for all people mentioned in the newspapers. It is the opposing view, that she searched state records because she is a Democratic hack, that is currently missing. (I'm speaking loosely here, but the point is the same. There is an investigation, and there is her defense. What is missing is the charge.) --Hoovercleanerupper (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP Violation by including Insinuation that Helen Jones-Kelly looked into Joe the Plumber record for political reasons.

[edit]

A single editor keeps adding Jones-Kelly's donation to the Obama campaign into the section about the investigation into Joe the Plumber record search. The investigation has not made any determination of political bias in the records searches. To include this information goes beyond what is known.

Per WP:BLP, "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons."

The sources out there do not state there's a connection between Jones-Kelly's donations and the investigation. Instead, they skirt this by juxtaposing two separate sets of facts, thereby creating guilt by association. At best, it's yellow journalism and Wikipedia has a higher standard. Mattnad (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? SYN would be if we put facts together that were not connected by the sources; in this case the newspaper does the SYN, and we just report it. The connection is perfectly reasonable and obvious, and we have the source to rely on; what more do you want? We should pretend that she was not highly committed to the Obama campaign? What else would you like us to pretend? Your reversions are utterly tendentious. You know very well that the information is valid and on point, and are editing in bad faith. Please stop it. -- Zsero (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zsero, unless you have a reliable source that is as explicit as the rationale you've just written to justify the inclusion, this violates WP:BLP. If you disagree with me, please take it up on the BLP noticeboard and make your case. There's no argument that she was an Obama supporter. The problem is your continued linking that to the records searches. That has not been explicitly demonstrated by the investigation. It's pure innuendo at this time, potentially damaging to Jones-Kelly, and malicious. Mattnad (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Columbus Dispatch of 14 Nov. now added as cite. It includes fact of contributions and JK denial of political motive, so no question of SYN or OR or the like. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need to simplify database search section

[edit]

This section is a mishmash of various news quotes right now. Many sentences are written in the imperative tense, when later in the article the activity has been concluded or facts have evolved. What we need to do (and the version in the JtP is better), is summarize the issues, key responses from people, and the outcomes. All of this should be in past tense, except when needed.

For instance, we now have "Currently, the attorney general's office of Ohio is investigating who used the government computers.[13] Thomas Charles, the inspector general of Ohio, is currently part of the investigation." This is unneeded, given we later write, "On November 20, 2008, Ohio's inspector general Thomas Charles reported that the reasonings that Helen Jones-Kelley provided for the checks on Wurzelbacher "were not credible and they included contradictions, ambiguity, and inconsistencies."

A lot can be trimmed. Do we really need the minutia of every reaction and development between the start and end of the investigation, or can we now look back on this, pick the salient points, and make this more concise.

I would have done these edits myself, but I'm taking the time to explain my plan because another editor made a fuss that major changes, even to a section so poorly written, requires "consensus". So I'm putting this up for discussion. Mattnad (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are all very good points. I agree the section needs to be updated per past tense, with the exception of ongoing investigations and reports. I trust your skills and intentions, if you want to take a bold edit of it, go ahead. My only concern is that all important milestones be included. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Ism schism (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the material needs some representation here. Collect (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My intention was to keep material directly related to Jones-Kelley. Specifically, what material do you believe "needs some representation here?" Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problems -- if I were upset, I would probably have made some minor edits. <g> Collect (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate your feedback and will work towards consensus. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amazingly enough, all references to "Democrat" were deleted -- I added in the reference to Strickland and J-K being Democrats,. Collect (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I'd like to remove this sentence "Jones-Kelley, a Democratic appointee who contributed $5,000 to Obama campaign funds, said there were no political motives behind the checks run the day after the Oct. 15 presidential debate, in which McCain repeatedly referred to 'Joe the Plumber." The investigation concluded there was no evidence of political motivation and this sentence basically repeats parts of Jones-Kelly's defense already in the article. Without evidence of political motivation for the searches, this strikes me as unnecessary (unless there's a desire to maintain that accusation of political motivation).Mattnad (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wish to remove a quote from a solid cite because the cite should not have mentioned the money? Nope. It is part of the newspaper article relevant to the section. I also added that the investigation specifically found her emails to be improper, which had not made it into the article. Collect (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Donations - if her actions had been found to be policially motivated, then her donations to Obama would have some relevance. Otherwise, why include it? As such, it strikes me as a random fact, with limited value to the article. Also, as constructed, it repeats aspects of her defense already mentioned in the article and is therefor redundant. Can you explain why we'd want it there? Part of editing is deciding what's helpful, and what can be left out. So, help me understand why this should be here in this form. I'm open to a justification, so please provide it.
Also, Thanks for adding the info on the e-mails. I moved it to the appropriate section. Mattnad (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The newspaper found it relevant. In fact, a number of sources find it relevant. Therefore I suspect it is relevant. Deleting it just because you do not like the fact of her contribution and campaign activity is errant. Collect (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a non-answer and barely a justification. Just because something is in a newspaper, does not mean it adds value. Now, it's been established that newspaper article was written before the IG had completed the investigation. When the article was written, there was unproven innuendo that her actions may have been politically motivated. Now the official inquiry has found NO EVIDENCE OF POLITICAL MOTIVATION. So why then are you keen on it being in here? I've given you a couple of chances to explain how the article will be enhanced by this and all you can say is that it was in a paper. I see no reason to keep it in from what you've written. Mattnad (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you upset that the Columbus newspaper and others considers a particular fact important and you don't? There is NO doubt that she used her email for campaign purposes, or did that particular fact elide your notice? The nexus is there as the newspapers noted to consider her campaign contributions to be relevant to this article. Collect (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not upset, but you're again avoiding the question. The "nexus" you mention, if any, is based on old rumor and demonstrably unfounded supposition. The cited article was written before the IG report came out. In the context of the database searches, I just don't see it as relevant given the current findings that there's no evidence her actions were politically motivated. There are other facts that I also left out, like the threats against her. Again, it's a big "so what" in the bigger context. And I'll argue that to include it is a violation of WP:BLP given the Nov. 20 IG report. It's about what's important based on what we NOW know.
How about this: how does this sentence add value to the article in your view, including the redundant mention of her defense? Put on your editor hat and look at the big picture before you answer. Thanks. Mattnad (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again -- your argument appears to be with newspaper editors and their judgements. Collect (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note the evasion. So there's no justification.Mattnad (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the personal attack. Your real problem is that the newspaper articles make a link you do not like. WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not work. I suggest you write your conserns to the Columbus Dispatch, and the other papers which reported on the investigation. Collect (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing - not even an effort to address the substantive issues here. An official investigation found no evidence of political connection and you want to keep it in hear. And when it's raised as an issue, you claim "personal attack." Nothing personal about it. In my view, this demonstrates a lack of good faith on your part. Bruno23 (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Evasion" is an attack. Sorry you do not understand that. The point is simple -- the newspaper articles concerning the investigation of Jones-Kelley state her political campaign contributions and the fact that her emails were connected to the Obama campaign. The investigation did find a direct connection between her emails and the campaign. It did not find a proven connection between the gross abuse of government power and the campaign. Is this clear? It sure seems so to the newspapers which published it! Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha - finally your true opinion and motivation. At any rate, the e-mails are not the records searches. Connecting them given the official findings is deliberately misleading readers on the facts. And I'd agree it's also WP:BLP. Care to take it to the WP:BLP noticeboard. I'll let you craft the presentation if you like. Mattnad (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The single article deals with the single investigation. Note that it was not I who MOVED the part about the emails. The error is that an editor moved part of a newspaper quote without due diligence. You could, of course, simply correct your move by also moving the rest of the newspaper statement to the email section. OK? I have about 60 more cites if you need them to show that she did make the contributions, and that the emails were also connected to the campaign. Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the quote is about the database search, not the e-mails. Get a better quote that's germane to the e-mail uses if you don't mind. If you can do that, then it makes sense and I'll have no objection. And by the way, "evasion" is hardly a personal attack.Mattnad (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article covers the database misuse and the emails. I can not change the "quote" as that would mean I was faking the quote. We are stuck with using the newspaper's words in this case. I see no problem -- I originally placed it all together, if you will recall. Collect (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you did put them together which was problematic since they were under the title of database searches. When I say change the quote, I mean find an appropriate quote. What you have there is not germane to the emails - it's about the DB searches. Mattnad (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- the newspaper quote is the newspaper quote. Telling me not to use it because it does not fit your idea of what is "germane" is absurd. Would you prefer a new section on "Investigation results as reported in newspapers" or just leave the quote under emails where it is now residing? Collect (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, the problems with quote are a) since that newspaper article, an official investigation found that the database searches were not politically motivated. b) The quote promotes a damaging accusation we have good reason to believe is false. c) It does not matter if a newspaper published something in the past if we have reason to thinks it's untrue. Per WP:BLP:
Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.
I had hoped to find some compromise with you on this, but you continue to avoid dealing with the issues that the quote gives a false and damaging impression. Just saying it was in the newspapers evades the core issues and shows you are not arguing in good faith. I will eliminate this quote and keep on doing it per wp:blp. And you know well that the 3 revert rule does not apply to those acting conservatively to protect a living person. If you attempt to revert this, I will petition to have you blocked.Mattnad (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that a full intact quote from the Columbus Dispatch "violates" BLP? As for asserting the 3RR rule -- it does not apply to people who are trying different edits in order to reach a compromise. I trust you were aware of that. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP Violation per the above. Yes. And keep it up and you'll be reported.
Oh? Sems to me that it is you who reached 3RR at this point. Collect (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP gives allowances for preventing contentious material from being reinserted. You're really not doing yourself any favors here. You insist on adding content that gives the impression that the database searched were politically motivated when we have a subsequent official investigation that says the opposite. You have refused several requests to explain why that material is helpful. I can only surmise that your intent in malicious and you are acting in bad faith. If you disagree, please take it up at the WP:BLP noticeboard. Mattnad (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How are corectly identified newspaper editorial possibly "contentious"? They are stated as opinions, which they are. Are you asserting that the statement of their opinions does not represent their opinions? Reserve "contentious" for facts which you do not want. Collect (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ADD every positive newspaper editorial you can find, that should make the section more "balanced" I suppose. You have deleted everything else which shows JK in an "unfavorable light" even saying she only "breached protocol" LOL! Collect (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Not playing. Mattnad (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you do not wish to balance the section? I say "Let's balance it!" Collect (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section as you've created it is a list of selectively negative comments that add no value to article. Even the section header is a bucket that is meaningless from an encyclopedic stand-point. If I were do to the same for let's say Joe the Plumber, you'd howl with indignation, and you'd run screaming that it violates NPOV etc. etc. You've done it before and it's sad. In the end, this is poor writing I won't be sucked into this crap.
I did not intentionally ignore any positive editorial opinions. If you feel that some are needed for balance, please add them. You refused to allow anything negative otherwise, even to the point that for a while her party was not even noted <g>. So I present material, and all you can say is that it is all negative? ADD positive stuff. That is how WP works. Collect (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've missed my point that this section in not encyclopedic. It's not connected except as a list of criticisms which is not particularly helpful for an article. It's not a matter of balance - it's a matter of meaning.Mattnad (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alas -- one editor emasculated the section on improper use of government computers. Now when faced with a wide variety of editorial opinions clearly referenced and sourced, he objects that no newspaper in Ohio is defending J-K's actions. And calls it "unbalanced." Um -- when ALL the newspapers have the same opinions, then I guess is is hard to find a balance -- but you are welcome to add any you wish. And many articles have such criticisms as a section, so I fail to see what you are upset about in the current instance. Collect (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for proving you're doing this for personal reasons and not editorial quality. Anyway, most of the articles you added included material mentioned already in the article. I've removed them for purposes of brevity and conciseness. The one item that was not duplicated that I removed was the editorial comment. That kind of material is by it's nature biased, and could be used to tarnish anyone. Mattnad (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No personal reasons at all. I was involved in no way with any campaign at all. I noted that the entire article had been purged of anything negative at all, so I sought EVERY newspaper editorial, intending to have an equal number supporting or citicizing her. I found absolutely none which supported her. EACH source uis correctly cited and referenced as opinion. As to the article being too long -- it is currently one of the shorter ones on any political figure, so "conciseness" is not an issue either. And I am amazed that you find newspaper opinions "biased" at all. You are certainly more than free, nay I am eager that you add balancing opinions! Collect (talk) 11:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't read the article then. Most of these points you've added in your negative zeal are already in article already except for the defamatory editorial. I'm not surprised you don't understand the difference between an article and an editorial. That says a lot about you. Anyway, I'll leave it to other editors if they care to take this on. Mattnad (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which editorial is "defamatory"? As I noted in the section that they were opinions of newspapers, I would trust most people would read the opinions as opinions, no? Collect (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


POV

[edit]

this article is to biased in favor of Kelley. This woman broke the law. That needs to be in the article somewhere. --69.37.38.207 (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is alleged to have broken the law, but she hasn't even been indicted, much less convicted. That said, the allegedly illegal actions are covered fully. See the "Department of Job and Family Services database search", "Alleged use of department e-mails for political activities", and "Ohio newspaper editorial comments on Jones-Kelley" sections, all of which deal with those matters. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE violation

[edit]

this article gives undue weight to Helen Jones-Kelly's involvement in leaking information about Joe the Plumber. if there is no discussion as to how to remedy this, i will, in one week, delete all but the first paragraph of the ODJFS database search section and the entire Use of ODJFS e-mail section Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed at length before. Please do not initiate any editwar in order to try changing consensus. And note also that announcing such a unilateral move is unlikely to make your position suddenly become consensus. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
really? where? in the 'Need to simplify database search section' section? that appears (from what i read) to be mostly addressing the quality of the writing - not it's legitimacy for inclusion. Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested a merge of part of this section into the article Ohio Department of Job and Family Services database search controversy page. I think it is best to see what editors think. Much of this material is direcely related to Jones-Kelley, so information related to her should stay. In addition, material not related to Jones-Kelley should be moved to the "Ohio Department of Job and Family Services database search controversy" page. Those are just my thoughts. I am open to other options as well. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i would support that Misterdiscreet (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Department of Job and Family Services database search controversy merge proposal

[edit]
This issue relates to several distinct and separately notable individuals, which makes the analogy errant. As the amount in each article is a reasonably short amount of material, we need not fear this getting to the length of potential heirs to the British throne by a long shot. If the material here were particularly long, you can rest assured I would prune it back. Collect (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the reason John Seigenthaler and Seigenthaler incident are separate articles is presumably because if they weren't the Seigenthaler incident incident would be given WP:UNDUE weight in John Seigenthaler article. i don't see why this article would be any different Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason your examples are inapropos is because JS was the victim of the "incident" (hoax) in which he had no active role at all -- in the case of HJ-K, she was the operative cause of the incident. AFAICT, no undue weight is given the acts of HJ-K in her article. Usually where a person in a BLP is the one who does the act, the act is properly mentioned in the BLP. Collect (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
when this article was nominated for deletion, one of the points raised was that this person was notable even outside of the Joe the Plumber incident. if you read this article, however, you'd walk away with the impression that the Joe the Plumber incident is the only thing she's ever done of note. this article gives WP:UNDUE weight to her involvement. 90% of this article is dedicated to something she did in, what? a single day? do you not see how that violates WP:UNDUE? Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out) A very large amount of material is devoted to her job and background. Her actions are not something WP has control over -- a large part of (say, in order to invoke Godwin) the (youknowwho) article deals with killing people. I am sure he did a lot of other stuff, but it is not up to us to invent more than we can find. All we are called on to do is use what material is available. Her job background, family and education is included in the article, as are facts baout her department etc. Ergo - UNDUE is not applicable here. Collect (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how do you go from "let's split the content" to "let's invent stuff to add"? you invoke a strawman - that's how. you distort your opponents position and then attack the distorted position Misterdiscreet (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I said that we have as much as we can reasonably find on her background and c.v. -- we can not add more than is out there, but that is sufficient for a BLP. The amount in the article on the database misuse is actually far less than is out there, we are treading carefully lest UNDUE be invoked. I did not feel that accusing me of distorting a position is a proper comment in this discussion at all. Is there a reason for such an accusation? Collect (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i may have misunderstood your post. i thought you were saying that i was proposing content be made up - not that the only way new content could be added would be to make it up. anyway, i think UNDUE can already be invoked (and indeed i have invoked it). a separate article as is being proposed would allow it to be discussed in more depth without invoking UNDUE Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UNDUE was raised and rejected at the AfD discussion. WP can not ignore something just because it looks bad in a person's BLP, nor should it add puff just to balance clear wrongs done by the person. The article does not insert our editorial opinion (nor should any article) but listing facts is proper. Any editorial opinions shown must be accurately cited and sourced, which is the current case. Collect (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
looking at the afd it looks like the word undue was only used once. besides, UNDUE isn't a reason for deletion - it's a reason for splitting, which is what is being proposed here. splitting isn't ignoring the problem, either, and it is disingenuous to imply that it is. Misterdiscreet (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you note it was raised in the AfD. Per AfD rules, arguments are not supposed to be iterated, thus its raising by one person was sufficient for it to be considered in the closing. Then you raised it here. And the fact is that most of the material available is NOT in this article. As for your claim it makes up "90%" -- that is a very long stretch of the facts. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and there you go ignoring my "UNDUE isn't a reason for deletion - it's a reason for splitting" point. as for the 90% thing -- you're right - that number has no basis in reality. i just pulled it out of my ass. i don't know what the actual percentage is nor am i going to write a point to calculate it. besides, the exact percentage is irrelevant. it would be UNDUE if it was 70% and it would be UNDUE if it was 90% Misterdiscreet (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Misterdiscreet, whether 70 or 90%, it might be more constructive for those of us who support a merge of most of the information to say specifically what information should stay. Any thoughts? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Main article: Ohio Department of Job and Family Services database search controversy
During the 2008 United States presidential election season, an employee at Helen Jones-Kelley's department used state computers to search for information on Joe Wurzelbacher.[1] The searches were decried as a partisan invasion of Wurzelbacher's privacy. An official investigation found that the searches breached protocol but found there was no evidence to prove they were part of a political agenda or linked with a political group or campaign.[2]. On December 17, 2008, Jones-Kelley resigned.[3]In response to ODJFS records search on Joe Wurzelbacher, Republican Ohio state representative Shannon Jones sponsored House Bill 648, which mandates civil and criminal penalties for improper access of personal information on state databases.[4] On January 6, 2009, Governor Ted Strickland signed the legislation[5]

And again per JtP comments -- this is a grossly inaccurate bowdlerization of the facts. Charles found it to be much more than a "breach of protocol" and the current lawsuits make this exceptionally germane to the BLP on HJ-K. Elision of germane facts does not serve this article. Collect (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please propose the text that you would include. That could be a constructive starting point. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current text in article is not excessive, and covers the facts. Collect (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So to be clear, you are for keeping 100% of the present material and not for a summary of any kind, correct? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might look at my initial comment. The material is not UNDUE, is written in a relatively terse manner, is germane, and is NPOV. Need I clarify? Collect (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not all information is specifically germane to Helen Jones-Kelley. Below is an example;
In response to the improper records search, Republican Ohio state representative Shannon Jones, has sponsored House Bill 648 that would mandate "the firing of any unclassified state employee who improperly accesses confidential personal information".[21] On December 10, 2008, the bill passed the Ohio House of Representatives by a vote of 69 to 26.[22] On December 17, 2008, the bill passed the Ohio Senate by a vote of 30 to 2.[23] On January 6, 2009, Governor Ted Strickland signed House Bill 648, creating civil and criminal penalties for violations of rules concerning access to personal information on state databases.[24]

This information is more germane to the article on the controversy. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that direct results of actions are, indeed, germane. Thus under Tojo the results of Pearl Harbor are relevant. Or is the claim that the bill had naught to do with HJ-K's actions? Collect (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable source states that Helen Jones-Kelley is responsible for HB 648? There are no sources that specify her as the specific cause. Per BLP, this section should be moved to the controversy article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Rep. Shannon Jones, a Springboro Republican sponsoring House Bill 648, said she introduced the measure because she thinks that high-ranking officials such as Job and Family Services Director Helen Jones-Kelley weren't punished enough." [3] "The legislation came in response to a recent investigation of Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services." [4] Two sources connecting J-K to the bill by virtue of her actions. Would you care for some more? Collect (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That does not demonstrate that Helen Jones-Kelley is responsible for HB 648, it just shows that Shannon Jones has an opinion - and that opinion is just that - HB 648 is what it is, and no sources show it to be the Helen Jones-Kelley Bill. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What it shows is that her actions led to the bill according to reliable sources. Bills are not always named after their cause after all, so that argument is non utile. Collect (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that no reliable sources prove that accusation. What source shows that her actions led to the bill - that is an unreliable accusation, it is non-verifiable and violates BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea -- if you exclude the two reliable sources I already gave. Collect (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bill concerns law and not any individual. For many news media, the bill is known as the Joe the Plumber Bill, none mention the "Helen Jones-Kelley Bill." Jones-Kelley only played a part in this event and was not/is not the only subject of this material. There are many individuals related to these events. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out)The RS cites are meaningless when faced with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Collect (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above discussion at the BLP noticeboard, a summation of the info related to the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services database search controversy has been placed in the intro. Also, the merge tag has been removed, as the link is now in the intro - and there is no consensus to merge. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/29/joe30.html?sid=101
  2. ^ ""IG Report: 'Joe The Plumber's' Files Were Searched Improperly"". NBC News. 2008-11-20. Retrieved 2008-11-20. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  3. ^ http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g16hbbAzgSL-JdNHj1sMISr4NuUAD954SAQ80
  4. ^ Catherine Candisky (2008-12-05). "Worker says 'Joe the Plumber' cover-up was forced upon her". Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved 2008-12-05.
  5. ^ ""'Joe the Plumber' bill OK'd by Strickland"". The Western Star. 2009-01-07. Retrieved 2009-01-08. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Helen Jones-Kelley/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.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
Some passing comments. Some more under "Background" or "Family history" would be useful; such as place and DoB, more info on previous jobs, stuff like that. A mention that she is a member of the Governor's Board would be useful.
Auto comments
§hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 21:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 17:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helen Jones-Kelley. 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Helen Jones-Kelley. 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Helen_Jones-Kelley&oldid=1207850816"