Talk:Heather Wilson

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: 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.  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.   
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.  
 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.  Bachs 07:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DeLay 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Public health edit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Voting against state's rights & public health 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This is just wrong 

message: 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.
Details are all there in the ABQ article. Skip all the other cites.
Thoughts? Therefore 00:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Also I see no harm in mentioning that the news clip was originally on youtube. Arbustoo 00:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of File rewrite 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: User:Therefore, I'm fine with that for now. Arbustoo 02:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  And that is the goal here -- to keep the information down to one short, informational paragraph. Therefore 02:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Shoesss, you want to model this page after Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies? Including the section about her being tied to Vincent Foster's death? 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  no laws were broken 

message: kzq -- I thought we agreed to discuss changes first here on the talk page?? Therefore 02:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Just for the record, I'm neither pro- nor anti-Wilson. I live in Portland. ;) Therefore 02:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: I vote for the integrity of Wikipedia policies. Therefore 02:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: """HER_HERE""" Therefore. Shoessss 02:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: I'll accuse you of ignoring WP:CONSENSUS if you remove the content again. Arbustoo 03:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No edits for 24 hours? 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  BLP as relates to Wilson 

message: Should state that a finding of "No" laws were broken. Shoessss 03:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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." The act was not itself illegal, but was questionable according to the DA. Arbustoo 03:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  significance of whether or not a law was broken 

message: 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 ====
* 
* 
Uncle G 14:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  There's nothing wrong with actually proposing whole solutions, as well as addressing the discussion piecemeal. Uncle G 00:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  There is no "1998 campaign" section. Uncle G 00:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Based upon what the sources say 

message: * 
* 
</blockquote>
Uncle G 14:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  There's nothing wrong with actually proposing whole solutions, as well as addressing the discussion piecemeal. Uncle G 00:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  There is no "1998 campaign" section. Uncle G 00:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: The Clinton articles have spin outs due to their length. This was explained to you already. Arbustoo 03:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kzq and Arbustoo, please refrain from discussing the Clinton articles. They are not relevant here. -Pete 03:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: ATTENTION: The above edit is WPBio's second ever edit. New user as of 26 March 2007. Arbustoo 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WPbio is stirring up serious trouble without consensus. C56C 22:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article lede 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removing tag 

message: 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.http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_06+H8NM01117http://www.rollcall.com/issues/51_80/atr/12080-1.html 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  NSA Warrantless Domestic Surveillance deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Jennings" 

message: Substituted at 17:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment comment 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More current image of Pres. Heather Wilson