Talk:Jill Hazelbaker

message: Jill Hazelbaker is a notable public figure in recent news stories. I recommend a Google News search for her name, which turns up 32 recent entries where reporters are quoting her directly and identifying her as the chief "spokesperson" or "press secretary" of presidential candidate John McCain. If she was at one time a "mid-level" staffer, she is no longer at that level now. I believe that Wikipedia should keep its ongoing article of her record so far, embarassing as some parts of that record might be. Don't let this information be "vanished" from Wikipedia. betsythedevine 10:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AfD template clearly states that "Unregistered users should visit Talk:Jill Hazelbaker and leave a detailed rationale for deletion, otherwise this template will be removed." In fact, the unregistered user who nominated this article for deletion has not offered any rationale. betsythedevine 20:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting this article benefits Hazelbaker, but not Wikipedia or the people who use it

message: Given that no definitive evidence ever emerged, I'm bothered that covering allegations in such detail give undue weight to the incident, and make it appear as if the subject is guilty; this incident is already covered in United States Senate election in New Jersey, 2006. It looks as if we are singling Ms Hazelbaker out as a suspect without proof (indeed, use of a common IP address in an office environment doesn't even begin to look like proof). In a BLP, this is not desirable. RayAYang (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not "we" who are singling out Ms Hazelbaker but all the contemporaneous media accounts of the incident.  {[WP:BLP]] does not require sanitizing biographies to minimize events where the subject got lots of real press coverage. I don't think the incident gets undue coverage considering the length of this biography. betsythedevine (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit worried about the coverage of the astroturfing incident 

message: From WP:EL:
In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies. Awotter (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper sourcing of material/external link guidlines 

message: Jill Hazelbaker is now a prominent spokesperson for John McCain. When her bio was first created, however, she was primarily known for her involvement in a 2006 campaign scandal involving Republican Senate candidate Tom Kean...and Wikipedia.  Should this 2006 scandal be included or not in the summary of the Hazelbaker bio? Involved editors disagree; what is the opinion of outside editors?  betsythedevine (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * It would indeed be unfair to  "credit Hazelbaker's entire rise to public attention" to the scandal. The summary-including-brief-mention-of-scandal does not do this. More space and more prominent space is given to her role in John McCain's campaign. The summary as you have edited it is quite misleading. In 2006, Hazelbaker was a press secretary who got news mentions, now and again, for giving isolated press quotes promoting her boss. How many press secretaries for unsuccessful 2006 Senate candidates were getting similar press mentions now and again?  Would you say that the names of those press secretaries too "came to public attention" in the 2006 campaign? Hazelbaker got national press coverage only after  the scandal surfaced.  The consensus so far is that the scandal belongs in the bio summary.  betsythedevine (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *If you want me to, I will go through old news articles to prove that Hazelbaker was frequently mentioned in national newspapers such as the New York Times before and after this scandal because of her prominent role in the campaign. If you read the article on the 2006 New Jersey Senate campaign, you would see that Tom Kean's campaign gained national headlines because it was an extremely close race and was the Republican's best bet that year to gain a previously-blue seat in the Senate. The scandal, in fact, was most widely reported on not in national newspapers (I believe it was mentioned in the New York Times online political blog once), but on local left-leaning New Jersey blogs. Hazelbaker was mentioned more often in the national media for her role as the spokesperson, not as someone associated with this scandal. I have revised back the statement, and again have not touched the body section. I am in no way trying to hide details of the event, but I am again asserting that this event does not warrant a place in the brief article summary. --Itsthehair (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *You can easily use the archive search function on the NYT website, but clip-quote attributions don't make a person notable. The fact that the scandal was widely taken up by "left-leaning" blogs is predictable but does not make it less notable. Please stop unilaterally reverting this bio summary when both RayAYang and i, the only two other editors taking an interest, agree that the well-known scandal belongs in there. Edit-warring and in particular WP:3RR are not good wikipedia practice. betsythedevine (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

text: * The Hazelbaker-IP-address scandal was in fact syndicated by both AP ("Kean campaign denies posting blog comments") and UPI ("GOP staffer accused of blog attacks", which is remarkable considering how complex the story is. The New York Times had at least 2 stories, one of these a blog. The Star Ledger's story gets quoted by many others, though it's now offline as are many others. You can see photocopies of some as of Sept. 29, 2006 here:  Oops just found one more stlll online: [http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/11/06/061106ta_talk_paumgarten New Yorker.  betsythedevine (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

text: *Again, I am not refuting the fact that the scandal warrants a significant place in the article - it is discussed in detail over multiple paragraphs in the body of this article. It is simply repetitive to detail the controversy again in the introduction. --Itsthehair (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on NJ scandal mentions of McCain press secretary Jill Hazelbaker 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jill Hazelbaker. 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  tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20080204/ai_n21225650/pg_2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080728030621/http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/18/1206398.aspx to http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/18/1206398.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080903041049/http://www.wral.com/news/political/story/3453209/ to http://www.wral.com/news/political/story/3453209/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090222045123/http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2009/02/bloomberg-hires-mccain-08-spok.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2009/02/bloomberg-hires-mccain-08-spok.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) 11:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jill Hazelbaker. 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  tag to http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20071005%2FNEWS09%2F710050396%2F-1%2FENT06
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081109023752/http://men.style.com/gq/features/campaign08 to http://men.style.com/gq/features/campaign08
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) 16:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified