Talk:Jean Schmidt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star Jean Schmidt is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 6, 2005.

Contents

[edit] Prediction

How is it appropriate to predict a future election result, especially without citing any poll information?

I think its appropriate to site Schmidt's advantage, based on the political makeup of the district, but to say she is widely expected to win is not a netrual position.

Besides the makeup of the district, what other source can you reference to bolster this opinion? Schnu

Q: What's the source of NRCC assertion? Don't see it in google news. PedanticallySpeaking 19:20, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

An Answer: To be honest, I did not attempt to confirm it. I just believed that it was not vandalism but rather someone's honest contribution. It seems there are a lot of mentions of this on some of the bigger left-wing blogs: [1]. I think that all the polling is internal to the parties and thus it isn't something that will come out in the formal news. Maybe it would be best to wait until a non-partisan source does a survey -- or wait a few days until August 2. --Ben Houston 20:02, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

It's been stated that the NRCC poll result was leaked from within the NRCC "by a Republican who is part of a group that doesn't see eye to eye with Schmidt on certain issues." [2] Of course, as an asserted anonymous leak, it's not high-quality information. The objective component is the heavy influx of Republican Party campaign funds to Schmidt, which is consistent with a poll showing she's in trouble, but it's also consistent with the hypothesis that this is a special election with no other race competing for attention. At this point, the poll doesn't seem to me to be worth including. JamesMLane 23:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This quote does not represent neutral point of view

"Hackett's fellow Dems in the blogosphere got so desperate at the end of the campaign that they began to accuse her campaign manager of being a closet S&M freak."

Agreed. It was inserted at two places, then removed from one. I've removed the other. JamesMLane 23:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It's still there and it needs complete removal.

I don't see it in the article anywhere right now. If it resurfaces, you don't need to sound the alarm here. Just click "Edit this page" on the article to call up the edit window, and delete it. JamesMLane 08:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget, though, there were actual accusations that her campaign manager used his work email for his personal ad on an ohio S/M site. If reporting that makes people "desperate" for anything, whatever. It doesn't chance that the accusations were far from baseless. Taniwha 16:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General Election section

I'll work on upgrading the general election section, but I don't have time today. I suggest anyone interested look at the Paul Hackett article, which is up to date in this regard. PedanticallySpeaking 16:02, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Both Parties Claim Victory

I don't want to edit your work, PedanticallySpeaking, but since much of the material in the final section discusses more about Hackett and the race itself than Schmidt (and I think this was also on Hackett's page), maybe it should be trimmed or deleted. --JamesB3 10:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I cut and pasted the material from Hackett as a stopgap. I'm going to try today to rework it to make it Schmidt-centric and include more about her. PedanticallySpeaking 17:30, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


Still, the part should be trimmed or deleted. --Vasile 01:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What about Deborah Pryce?

This article says Schmidt was the first female Republican from Ohio elected to Congress in her own right. What about Deborah Pryce? --JamesB3 09:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, James, you are correct, sir. I relied on press accounts here in southwest Ohio which made the claim, even though I was familiar with Mrs. Pryce, e.g. I had cited her in the Bob McEwen article. I will change the text immediately. Thanks for bringing this up. PedanticallySpeaking 14:26, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
No problem. I'm sorry if that came across as snippy, that wasn't the intent. --JamesB3 14:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
No, I didn't think it was snippy. I thought it was perfectly civil. I was just quoting Carson there at the beginning. PedanticallySpeaking 15:05, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

This has been added as it is a standardised infobox included on almost all FA articles about a person. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I removed the terrible infobox. It is in very bad taste to have a "Died:" field in a bio of a living person. Please cease putting this terrible infobox on living persons' bios. thank you. Mareklug talk 04:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not in bad taste. I have reverted. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Braun

Someone had inserted the following, giving [3] as a reference:

On July 28th, 2005 Jean Schmidt's campaign manager Joe Braun was linked to a BDSM website where he openly sought out partners for his alternative lifestyle. Although this was in direct contrast to Schmidt's platform on family values, all the evidence was ignored by Schmidt and denied by Braun.

I have removed this. For such a strong claim, I want to see better references from reputable sources. All I could find were lots ob blogs, but no serious news sources. (Maybe it's true, maybe not—I don't know at all. But if it is true, we should be able to reference it to something better than your average blog.) Lupo 10:31, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


I was involved in the campaign and the statement that Joe Braun was a BDSM fetishist is completely crazy. Late in any campaign, people will start making up rumors and the more bizzare they are the more attention they get. Apparently someone registered at a BDSM site with a personal email address slightly different than Joes and subsequent people photoshopped the screen shot to make it look like his actual email. While it was a lot of fun to joke about at headquarters, there was never anyone who took it seriously besides the bloggers.

Why was the tidbit about hear slander of Rep. Murtha removed? We should be clear that Jean Schmidt will carry that to the grave and beyond. Why are her supporters fighting history?

I'm deleting it once more because I have not seen this in any reputable source and from my bibliography, you can believe me that I did a thorough examination of the materials. PedanticallySpeaking 16:33, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq War / John Murtha

I've added a sentence, with reference, regarding the uproar she caused in the US House with her attack on Rep. Murtha. I believe it to be in the most relevant place, POV-Neutral and documented. (I wasn't logged in when I added it, but the 216.103.80.214 entry is mine). Snowhare

PedanticallySpeaking edit of 15:01, 19 November 2005 is good, but it lacks footnotes/references that back the additional information. The CNN article does not contain any of the retraction information. I've added a reference for it. Snowhare 15:52, November 19, 2005 (UTC)

The expansion of material is far too much for the event. One paragraph, as before, was sufficient. This would be more appropriate for an article on Hunter's resolution rather than here. And in the expansion, the redefinition of taking down words was made incorrect. PedanticallySpeaking 17:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Corrected some errors in the section (e.g. it was a call, not a letter), narrowed the focus to Jean's actions and the immediate response, added a link to the video, added a picture, grouped her congressional sections together, etc. Rillian 19:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the reports from Washington Post and Nytimes about Rep. Col. Danny Bubp, whose words were cited by Ms Schmidt; apparently he doesn't admit those words were from him at all. --129.119.223.165 17:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't really think this article should contain SNL's story or the detailed back and forth on the House Floor, as those are totally irrelavent with Ms. Schmidt. Just stats what she said and what Danny Bubp said is enough to clarify the whole case. I did NOT modify anything, but urge other editors to consider my suggestions-the article is way too bloated with irrelavent content!--129.119.223.165 00:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article length

The article is exceeding Wikipedia's recommended length. I suggest a lot of the detail on the 2005 election should be moved to the Ohio Second Congressional District Election, 2005 article or trimmed. This article should about Jean, her background, and her career. Not pages of detail of one election that overlaps with the the Ohio Second Congressional District Election, 2005 article and the Hackett bio article. Your thoughts? Rillian 19:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I object. The information details her and her campaign in one single place. Why should we force users to traipse around looking at multiple articles. And the article with this detail was approved as a featured article. Also, the notice about length is not a justification for paring down articles.PedanticallySpeaking 16:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
The main article is Ohio Second Congressional District Election, 2005. That should have ALL the details about Schmidt and her opponents that were important for that election. The section in the Jean Schmidt article pertaining to that election should be a brief summary; the interested reader can then go to the main article.
If you look at articles on other people in Congress, I don't think you'll find a single one where the majority of the article (in this case, 10 out of 18 pages, where a page is a "page down" on my computer, for what that's worth) is on a single campaign. If the detail is preserved in the Ohio Second Congressional District Election, 2005 article, then it will never go away. I'd like to try moving everything that isn't already in the main article into that article, and then removing all but a page or so summary from the biographical article. John Broughton 03:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I proposed the same last November and still support it. The content from the Schmidt and Hackett personal articles about the 2005 election should be moved into Ohio Second Congressional District Election, 2005. Ten years from now when I'm reading about Schmidt, the details who came in second to her in the 2005 primary won't be material, but that will still be relevant to the Ohio Second Congressional District Election, 2005 article. Rillian 14:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, hearing no objection, I shall proceed to shorten the article, making sure that removed detail is preserved in the Ohio Second Congressional District Election, 2005 article.
Well, I'm done - the section on the 2005 race is now about 40% shorter. I'm not ecstatic about the new length, but virtually everything left is about Schmidt or provides needed context, I think. (On the other hand, I'd welcome someone with a willingness to summarize to take a cut at what remains.) John Broughton 20:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Today is the first day I have ever seen this article. I am familiar with the region but Jean Schmidt represents a different part of Ohio. In my opinion the article is still way too long in length. It gets a little old reading it. I find it highly unusual to include photos of opposing candidates in the article. ISTM they should be on the wiki page made for the opposing candidate. The one in particular is funny to see, because the photo is only on this Schmidt page but when you click on the link to the other candidate, his photo is not on his page. Go figure. Why would somebody do this? This is an example of what is wrong with the article, way too bloated. Mfields1 02:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geography

The article mentions that Ohio's second district borders West Virginia. It does not. It only borders Kentucky. The second district map provided shows that. Ohio's sixth district is the only one that I know that borders West Virginia.

[edit] Errr...

"They think I'm a hottie," she said. "Of course, I denied all of them..."

Does anyone else find this a little... unfortunate? I had to reread it because at first I thought she was denying she was a hottie, which of course wasn't the case... Which grown woman calls herself a hottie anyway?! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Jean Schmidt evidently doesn't have a grasp of who she is, and I say that taking into consideration Wikipedia's policy of assumming good faith to such a degree that it isn't even funny. Hopefully, she'll be defeated in the up coming election and the Congress will be cleansed of her evilness. Stude62 14:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It's an interesting quote, I don't read the papers much so I didn't see it first hand. However, if she said this it demonstrates more than anything that she has poor judgement. The article should make it clear (if this is the case) she turned down the marriage proposals and offers for dates. It's a weird statement for a person in Congress to make. They are supposed to be elected for other reasons. Have there been congressmen (or congresswomen) in the past who have made similar statements? I doubt it. I suppose in the end she is terribly embarassed by what she said and probably was trying to justify it by indicating approval from other sources. Maybe she would understand, she made a mistake, and after the apology she would have been better off, when asked, to achknowledge it was a mistake or else give a no comment. You have to wonder why she would want to state publicy "...they think I'm a hottie..." LOL Mfields1 02:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions About Degree

The Plain Dealer reports on its website that Schmidt may not have earned a college degree she claims. I am asking for confirmation from the University of Cincinnati and will note this in the biography when I find out more. PedanticallySpeaking 16:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The story on WLW-AM's site is here. I confirmed with the University of Cincinnati she did not earn the second degree listed in her official biography on her campaign web-site and which I had listed in the Wikipedia article. I have accordingly deleted it here and noted the false claim in the article. PedanticallySpeaking 16:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

I have removed the NPOV tag and reverted the article to what it was before recent edits by 138.162.5.7. That reversion removes the NPOV tag. I have also made minor edits to the article because I agree that the wording could be improved to make it more NPOV.

I note the following:

  • This was a wikipedia featured article; in this case, a lot of people spent a lot of time on it; to label the entire article as not NPOV (or to propose a debate on that issue) is potentially insulting to all those people, and to the wikipedia featured article process, which is designed to ensure NPOV for such articles.
  • The changes that I reverted were made were to the top (summary) part of the article; the details, below, were unchanged. If the article is truly not NPOV, those details should be the first place where changes are made. (And if the problem with NPOV is limited to the top summary, don't tag the whole article.)
  • One statement that was added -- "Democrats had predicted victory, but despite their loss ... " --- is FALSE. I suspect the confusion comes from claims of "victory" afterwards because Schmidt won by only 3.5% points. There is absolutely no support in the article for anyone predicting that Schmidt would lose to her Democratic opponent; saying that "Democrats had predicted victory" means they said, BEFORE the election, that Schmidt would lose.
  • The article provides the following information: "The district was reliably Republican, the Cook Political Report calling the Second District the fifty-seventh most Republican in America. The district had been in Republican hands for all but nine years since 1879, and no Democrat had held the seat since Thomas A. Luken's narrow loss to Willis D. Gradison in 1974." That doesn't make the district "overwhelmingly" Republican, perhaps, but the matter shouldn't be ignored by simply deleting "overwhelmingly". So I changed it to "reliably" in the article.

If, after my changes, someone feels the article is still biased as a whole, please list the MANY things that make it so. If it only has problems with a few sentences, then make reasonable edits and avoid characterizing the entire article as problematical. John Broughton 22:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Marathon photo

It's too bad that the campaign has swapped out the original biography page, putting up this instead, because I don't think there is any question that the photo in question (no longer available on the biography page) is genuine. The [[4] most recent story] cites independent verification. As far as the two points of argument:

  • She isn't in the newspaper, presumably, because she finished 930th overall, and the paper didn't list that many.
  • More importantly, no shadow shows - but that's because of where Schmidt is in the picture. And the timeclock is consistent with her finishing time. Personally, I think Schmidt should fire her attorney, Joseph Braun, for saying "I can’t explain the shadows. I wish I could." And she should see if someone else had a kneejerk reaction of pulling the webpage rather than actually LOOKING at the picture. John Broughton 16:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
My guess is that it was removed while being reviewed by the panel.Rkevins82 03:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I'd still fire the lawyer (maybe after the campaign is over, though). I also note that the editor of www.politics1.com, who admitted his dislike of Schmidt, also concluded that the picture was genuine.
If in fact the photo is judged to be genuine, then I'm planning to remove the section on it from the Schmidt article, while keeping it in the campaign article, because at that point it is really just a campaign issue/maneuver; it would say nothing about Schmidt that would be newsworthy in the main article. John Broughton 14:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
It was judged to be genuine, and I have removed the section. All the information, including resolution of the issue, is at Ohio 2nd congressional district election, 2006. John Broughton 14:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Saturday Night Live"

I was pleasantly surprised by how NPOV this page is, considering the bias that I perceive in the articles for other Republican politicians. But I do have one question: What is the point of the "Saturday Night Live" paragraph? It seems to me quite irrelevant and somewhat predjudicial. Kardreader 03:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Since: no one has posted a response or objection to my note above, and, I see that another editor previously questioned the SNL paragraph, and, no source is cited for that paragraph, and, it seems to me irrelevant, un-encyclopedic, and somewhat predjudicial: I have removed the "Saturday Night Live" paragraph. Kardreader 05:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References --Sept. 2006

I removed these from the reference section because they are not directly tied specific sources, some aren't linked, and this excessive list takes up a lot of room. See Wikipedia:Footnotes for proper referencing method. Arbusto 00:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move info to the election page

Some of this is awfully duplicative of what's in Ohio 2nd congressional district election, 2006. Should we trim here and/or move stuff over there? -- Sholom 18:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The intro to the article states that Schmidt called Murtha a "coward" on the capitol floor. This is technically not true, as she did not directly call him a coward. Many people have interpreted (probably correctly) her statement as "calling Murtha a coward," but it violates NPOV for Wikipedia to state that. Just state the facts.209.247.23.129 01:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


Jean Schmidt has, in fact, been certified as the winner of the November, 2006 election over Victoria Wulsin. When I went to the Jean Schmidt page to try to update it with this fact, I couldn't get to that part of the article. Someone who has the power needs to do the update. 65.54.97.153 16:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Billnati

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/a/Talk%7EJean_Schmidt_6e10.html"