Talk:Jill Kelley/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Edit Request: Infobox Current Occupation

Infobox is inaccurate and does not display the subject’s current occupation, President of the advisory firm, Military Diplomacy Strategies.

Sources:

The Washingtonian: https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/11/08/jill-kelley-plans-party-wednesday-trump-hotel-celebrate-donald-trumps-victory/

Satellite Today: https://www.satellitetoday.com/mobility/2018/10/16/jill-kelley-to-share-details-of-new-secure-satellite-venture-at-dc5g-event/

IIOT.com: https://www.iiotconnection.com/jill-kelley-to-share-details-of-new-secure-satellite-venture-at-dc5g-event/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:3:801:0:0:0:BB (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree it should be added. If no objections from others, I will add. Webmaster862 (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Cease fire

It appears to there has been a bit of an edit war in progress here. That is not how we resolve things here. We discuss instead of repeatedly reverting. Editing is now prevented for a few days in order to give the edit warriors an opportunity to discuss the situation. the other alternative is blocking all involved parties, so please do discuss the matter here instead. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for a ceasefire because i have gone ahead and found more specific and well sourced references that back my initial edit. So now my edit plus the 4 new references would look like this:

However, she was dismissed after only four months, with a South Korean official claiming she had used her title for personal gain.

So i am hoping now that the block can be removed and the edit re-added. Thanks.Fotoriety (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

References

You cannot use that because you're giving WP:UNDUE weight to only one side. Further WP:BLPCRIME says "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." The only thing here, and what your first 3 references support, is that "A New York businessman, Adam Victor, told Dateline NBC that Kelley was introduced to him at the Republican National Convention in Tampa in August as someone whose friendship with Petraeus would help facilitate a no-bid deal with South Korea on a coal-gasification project." What I would suggest is "In 2012, New York businessman Adam Victor accused Kelley of using her position as special envoy to South Korea for personal gain. Despite denying the allegations, South Korea removed Kelley from the position."--v/r - TP 17:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes i totally agree with your re-worked edit.Fotoriety (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of education

An undergrad doing research in a lab while taking some elective courses is not the same thing as a matriculated medical school student. "While subsequently attending courses at Hahnemann University’s medical program.." does not mean she was enrolled in medical school or the natural continued course of her education would have resulted in becoming a MD/DO. Studied to be a doctor is being overly generous here and I think intentionally distorts the extent of education. The cited article is from the Kelley's lawyers complaint in an attempt to get damages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.79.77.195 (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

New photo added, licenses released (OTRS pending)

New photo added from wikimedia commons license released to wikimedia, OTRS pending.Legaledits13 (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

given the fact that you claim to have personally taken the picture of Kelley and her husband, it would seem that you have a close personal connection to the subject, therefore I ask you to stop directly editing the content of the article and instead propose changes on here on the talk page and wait for other editors to determine the appropriateness. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

4 new rank officers associated scandal

As of July 2014, at least 4 additional ranking officers have been indicated in inappropriate activities at Tampa with Kelley, two of which are attempting to stage a large scale managed coupe at Pacific Command using foreign assets associated with RIMPAC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.243.190 (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Altough this request is from 2014, I wanted to respond. There is already plenty of info here regarding Kelley's involvement. What you mention has nothing to do with her.Webmaster862 (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: personal history

Please add "Gigi" to the article, as that's her former nickname per [1] -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done There is no compelling reason to include former nicknames. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

All names become former names as time passes. Wikipedia does not solely deal with the current state of things. She once lived in Philly, and the name she used while there is part of her personal history. Gigi was her formative name. The provided source can be used as a ref for that bit of personal history, as well as her other siblings. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Done NiciVampireHeart 13:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This page has been whitewashed

There is very little here about the bogus cancer charity she ran with her husband and was an integral part of the Petraeus scandal... http://www.thewire.com/national/2012/11/jill-kelley-ran-bogus-cancer-charity-wants-diplomatic-protection/58981/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/tampa-woman-was-hostess-to-the-military-but-had-deep-financial-troubles/2012/11/13/45cea33c-2d19-11e2-9ac2-1c61452669c3_story.html https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2012/11/15/more-dirt-kelley-and-her-cancer-charity/ http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/13/us/jill-kelley-profile/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.89.234 (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Added, watching to see if Kelley/her PR folk reverse this... Shocklate (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This page reads like Jill Kelley wrote it. Sajita (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Why has all the information regarding charity operations been removed? It was sourced and very relevant to this person. Could somebody more experienced add that info back in, and get control of this article from the blatant bias here. I saw the death threat made by an IP to an editor a while ago. This article has been completely manipulated pro-topic. Shocklate?? Thank you! 24.198.160.172 (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree 100%.

Fat Irish Guy (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jill 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-0/petraeus-scandals-jill-kelley-becomes-a-privacy-champion
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213143747/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/2-congressmen-have-questions-jill-kelley-leak to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/2-congressmen-have-questions-jill-kelley-leak
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140115135614/http://gawker.com/5960211/petraeus-pal-jill-kelley-loaned-800000-to-her-unstable-twin-sister to http://gawker.com/5960211/petraeus-pal-jill-kelley-loaned-800000-to-her-unstable-twin-sister
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141023164955/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/govt-seeks-dismissal-petraeus-related-lawsuit to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/govt-seeks-dismissal-petraeus-related-lawsuit

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) 11:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Illegible

This article is illegible. Can someone clean it up? Did she write it herself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.112.183 (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Can you please be more specific so I might be able to help? Or you can go ahead and clean it up yourself. Regards, Swagsevo (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It would appear that someone is puffing up this article.

The false claims are astounding. This isn’t the only article that puffs her up either.

I suspect there are conflict of interest issues here. Fat Irish Guy (talk) 10:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

So many of the sources are Jill Kelley originated

Quotes from her legal complaint, her book and opinion pieces where she tells “her side of the story.”

At what point is it too much? Fat Irish Guy (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Use of Jill Kelley’s legal pleadings.

I’ve axed most of them since they aren’t allowable sources for a biography. However, I left one citation because the statement was specifically about the filing and contents of the lawsuit and was published by a reputable news source. Fat Irish Guy (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

False statement with unreliable sources (clear conflict of interest)

The following statement has been inserted into the article more than once . The attached “sources“ are business solicitations where the information is supplied by the subject of the article. No independent source supports this claim. Also, no such title exists. In addition, she was stripped of her Honorary Consul’s appointment by the South Koreans in 2012 as a result of the Petraeus scandal and Mattis wasn’t appointed as SECDEF until 2017.

This is an absolutely false statement. The individual posting it made other Jill Kelley related alterations to other articles in approximately the same timeframe. It would appear to be a representative of the subject of the article or the subject herself.

“and former military ambassador to Secretary of Defense James Mattis“ Fat Irish Guy (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Added documented title from former role in the intro section

information which is critical to establish notability of the subject. Documented with valid reference. 10Sany1? (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC) The correct citation for this is #4 "Satellite Today" article by Jeffrey Hill, 10/16/2018.

Neither of the two sources you linked are authored by Jeffrey Hill.

The first is an unsourced article from an industry group. No author or other validation is provided.

The second is written by someone named Kelly Hill. She’s strictly going off the claims of the individual, Jill Kelley.

There is an actual article by Jeffrey Hill that you are pretending to cite while not actually citing it.

1) It describes her as a diplomatic liaison not an Ambassador.

2) It describes her as an honorary ambassador not an Ambassador.

Neither of those things is the same as an actual Ambassador as was discovered when she attempted to claim diplomatic status to force the press to quit hounding her.

3) The article states her reason for notability as being, “Jill Kelley became a focus of media coverage when her name was leaked as part of an FBI investigation that led to the resignation of CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus in 2012.”

Here’s the actual article you’re pretending to cite:

https://www.satellitetoday.com/mobility/2018/10/16/jill-kelley-to-share-details-of-new-secure-satellite-venture-at-dc5g-event/

There’s no question she is a notable figure. That’s never been in dispute. She has a new company and wants to do well.

However, for whatever reason, seemingly random editors are continually trying to insert the same false claims into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fat Irish Guy (talk • contribs) 02:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

You’ve also added a dead link to the Tampa Tribune that had already been removed. What gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fat Irish Guy (talk • contribs) 03:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Fat Irish Guy - your changes - as I look back on your history & comments - appear to be personally motivated. You have removed any and all positive information about this subject and have removed valid references as well. This is not in compliance with WP:ATK rules.

To reply to your comment - The reference I used to cite the official title of the subject in the opening paragraph, was clearly noted in the citation I added, and the link I provided above - reference #4, authored by Jeffrey Hill. How can you say that this citation doesn't exist and there is no reference to Jeffrey Hill? https://www.satellitetoday.com/mobility/2018/10/16/jill-kelley-to-share-details-of-new-secure-satellite-venture-at-dc5g-event/ Sadly, your information is not at all factual in your claims above regarding the change I made. The subject did indeed receive the title of " She served as the first honorary ambassador to the International Military Coalition Forces at United States Central Command under U.S. Secretary of Defense Gen. James Mattis" which is well documented in not only the citation I provided. The title I included in the content was directly from the citation, and did not claim subject's title was "Ambassador" but rather ....first honorary ambassador -- which is exactly what the title was, as is also evidenced in actual emails exchanged between the subject and the other military officials. While you are claiming that random editors (aren't all wiki editors random? - that's the intent) are puffing up and inserting false claims into this article is a false claim on your part.

It would be far better for the community to maintain integrity when editing articles, and not present fictitious information on this talk page regarding the rationale for changes. The content I added was literally pulled, word-for-word, from the satellitetoday source. I specifically did NOT use the other sources with same information because they don't fit the wiki standards. I don't know who added them initially. 10Sany1? (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no particular feeling about the article subject one way or the other. If my intent was malicious then there are lots and lots of negative things that could be put into this article. I intentionally don’t do that.

I do have feelings about demonstrably false statements repeatedly inserted into an article that appear to make the subject seem more important than they actually are. I do have feelings about editors that obviously have conflicts repeatedly inserting false information into an article.

My point about random editors is that they pop up to insert the same false unsupported information each time. It’s altogether obvious. Commment by Fat Irish Guy interrupted here

Click on the link I included above - if the link is incorrect in the wiki page now, it's because someone else has manipulated it to be so. I am not clear on why you are saying the statement I added is false and unsupported, when it is, in fact, supported by the article I mapped it to, the same article in satelllitetoday.com above....10Sany1? (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it’s telling that your link (Reference 4) in the article to the cited Jeffrey Hill article isn’t a link to anything at all. Commment by Fat Irish Guy interrupted here

It was there when I linked it, if it's missing, it's because someone else changed it. I also added the link at least twice on this talk page. For your easy reference, here it is again>>>>> https://www.satellitetoday.com/mobility/2018/10/16/jill-kelley-to-share-details-of-new-secure-satellite-venture-at-dc5g-event/ If you click on this link, you will see the author, clearly noted, you will see the content I pulled directly from the article and referenced as such, appropriately. So I'm not sure how you say this is 1) false; 2) unsupported? 10Sany1? (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

As I’ve noted, the article which you named, yet never cited, I actually cited and linked in this talk page.

Factually, the statement claiming the article subject was an honorary ambassador serving under Secretary of Defense James Mattis that you’ve reinserted is false on its face. The scandal involving the article subject occurred in 2012. James Mattis didn’t become Secretary of Defense until five years later in 2017. Commment by Fat Irish Guy interrupted here

Ok, that makes some sense - then the article (reference) is incorrect and the correct secretary of defense in 2012 should replace the name "James Mattis." She did hold that "honorary" title, although it's unclear why. there is record of it in the emails documented in the scandal. 10Sany1? (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I intentionally put this debate on the talk page a few weeks ago so we could try and come to some mutual resolution. Since it appears that isn’t possible, I suggest we just put it in the hands of the administrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fat Irish Guy (talk • contribs) 14:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey F.I.G. (hope you don't mind if I abbreviate) - I am fine with getting additional opinions from admins. ARticles are intended to be factual and not slanted positive or negative - just report the facts. I agree with most of the changes made, but do think that the summary/opening needs more than she's a lebanese american activist. That's not the reason she's a topic.10Sany1? (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello guys, I have read both your arguments. It seems that the Fat Irish Guy has a good reason for removing what he removed because the tile of " former military ambassador to Secretary of Defense James Mattis " did not match any of the sources. However, checking these sources a more appropriate title is "honorary ambassador to U.S. coalition military forces." I am guessing not having the word "honorary" was the issue, but Mr Fat Irish Guy, why did you just completely remove it rather than fixing it?? Is there another issue other than that which I am missing?

This Washington Post reference, refers to the title as "honorary ambassador for Central Command and the U.S.-led military coalition in Afghanistan and the Middle East"

The Satellite today refers to her as "ambassador to the International Military Coalition Forces at United States Central Command under U.S. Secretary of Defense Gen. James Mattis."

This USA today article, refers to her as "party ambassador for U.S. Central Command and Special Operations Command"

Here is another article that mentioned "honorary ambassador"

So if there are no objections, lets add her title as "honorary ambassador to U.S. coalition military forces." Webmaster862 (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey Webmaster862 thank you for your input. The title I added to the summary section at the top was pulled directly from the Satellitetoday.com source.... word for word. The only issue I can see in Fat's objection -- was a valid comment that Mattis was not Secretary of Defense at the time subject received the honorary title. I support your recommendation. I will add that sadly, Fat Irish Guy seems to be not assuming "good faith" here and his edits feel a bit more personally-motivated for some reason -- which is not apparent in the edits alone, but rather in reading the commentary on the talk page. Thank you for quick reply on this. 10Sany1? (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey [[User:Webmaster862|Webmaster862] and 10Sany1?

Sorry for the delay.

FIG is fine. It’s easier for you to type out.

Reference #4 in the actual article is that dead Tampa Tribune citation I already mentioned that you’ve added back in repeatedly.

The Satellite Today article is pulling from a conference panel the subject participated in. Those panels are solicitations to drum up business and that biographical info is provided by the subject. Basically, it’s information from an ad. You can look around online and actually find the solicitation.

You cite the contents of the original emails which you’d only have access to if you are the subject or have some sort of relationship with the subject. You have a clear conflict of interest. Reading above in the history of the article clearly indicates that’s been a problem in the past.

I found another news article that jives with the Washington Post article and calls her “United States Central Command and Coalition Honorary Ambassador.” That makes it double sourced and I’m fine with its usage. I’ll add the link tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fat Irish Guy (talk • contribs) 23:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Corrected current occupation +2 small changes elsewhere

Hey editors - I did a bunch of research as provided additional citations to support adding the correct version of both Kelley's current occupation as well as the official terminology for her former roles associated with government. Also corrected the then-title of Gen'l Mattis - who was NOT Secretary of Defense in 2012 as noted earlier by User:Fat_Irish_Guy

Also aligned the court doc to the first reference of the lawsuit as it's only a reference as evidence of a lawsuit actually being filed, and the suit itself does not offer valid references to any other statement as User:Fat_Irish_Guy pointed out earlier.

I also think it makes sense to limit the "downplay" of the prestigious nature of the Yale invite, as the refeerence provided clearly indicates the prestige here. As per WP:UNDUE the article should be balanced -- not a negative slant -- and these citations represent that. Please check it out. 10Sany1? (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@10sne1 I saw your recent edit. I suggest we revise it like the below, which includes a bit more info and clarifies it better.

Jill Kelley (born June 3, 1975) is a philanthropist, advocist and diplomatic advisor. [1][2][3][4][7][8] She was also a former South Korean Honorary Consul and former honorary ambassador to U.S. coalition military forces, in 2012 under Marine General James N. Mattis, then commander of U.S. military forces in the Middle East.[2][3] She is currently the president of Military Diplomacy Strategies, an international advisory firm.[1][2][3][4]

1) https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/11/08/jill-kelley-plans-party-wednesday-trump-hotel-celebrate-donald-trumps-victory/ 2) https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/bullying-petraeus-family-friend-denounces-professors-who-deemed-mistress-more-attractive-than-wife 3) https://www.pymnts.com/mobile/2018/5g-technology-deployment-security-privacy/ 4) http://satellitemarkets.com/events/developments-5g-ecosystem 5) https://www.cnn.com/2012/11/13/us/jill-kelley-profile/index.html 6) https://www.tampabay.com/list/military-news/clinton-advisor-bashed-jill-kelley-in-newly-released-emails-20151201/ (PAGE IS DOWN, replace with https://web.archive.org/web/20180421162709/http://www.tbo.com/list/military-news/clinton-advisor-bashed-jill-kelley-in-newly-released-emails-20151201/ ) 7) https://www.newspapers.com/clip/61845621/the-tampa-tribune-18-nov-2012/ 8) https://pagesix.com/2013/11/30/socialite-jill-kelley-returns-to-public-life-after-petraeus-scandal/amp/ Let me know what you think. Webmaster862 (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)'

Hello again. @Webmaster862 - Re your suggestion on the intro - do you mean "advocate" where you say asdvocist? Aside from that one correction I'd make, I agree with your suggestion and additional citations. 10Sany1? (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm I don't even know if Advocist is a word, I was combining Advocate and Activist. LOL. Google doesn't bring up this word. I think Activist is more accurate. I am going to update the page, based on our discussion then. Webmaster862 (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

BTW, #5 source that you added for Washington Post is broken. Do you have the actual source for that to fix? Webmaster862 (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Webmaster862 I fixed the missing link to the Washington Post article. You should be able to see it correctly now. thank you.10Sany1? (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Added balance under WP:DUE based on existing cited source

User: Katine67 I added the following statement from the same source used for the subject’s side:

"It is not suitable to the status of honorary consul that [she] sought to be involved in commercial projects and peddle influence," Kyou-hyun told South Korea's semi-official Yonhap News Agency.

It’s a fair statement and covers the other side of the issue. You’ve removed it without comment.

Would you mind explaining your reasoning. Thanks.

Fat Irish Guy (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Surely, Fat Guy - The statement you added was from what was written as a semi-official person. What is a semi-official person exactly? ARe they telling official truth or semi-official truth? Or no truth at all? Accusing Kelley of something that she was not proven to be guilty of the accusation is against WP:CRIME. Also, the comments seem to lack adherence to WP:BLPPUBLIC. Stating Kelley was stripped of the honorary title states the fact; the rest is disputable. Without actual proof that there was some wrong-doing, there's no reason to say more unless you are WP:BLPCOI.K67 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Sarcasm isn’t necessary. It’s what the article directly states.

She’s not being accused of a crime so WP:CRIME isn’t relevant.

It specifically and exactly adheres to WP:BLPPUBLIC because it explains the other side. “If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.” You’re wanting to extract and use her accusation of why she was stripped of the honorific without extracting and using their reason(s) for stripping her of the honorific. Both their reason for stripping her title and her explanation of why she thinks it happened is relevant and in the same cited article.

WP:BLPCOI doesn’t apply because I don’t have a particular positive or negative view of the subject. I’m neutral. My statement reflects covering both sides of the event (neutrality). Yours covers only the subject’s side of the event. Fat Irish Guy (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Fat Guy no sarcasm, just stating my opinion. The unofficial official is making accusatory statements about this person, statements that reflect his opinion. Opinions in BLP are not acceptable content. The page describes both sides, and is not really a flattering article in any way.

In reading the whole talk page, your comments fall into WP:BLPCOI. Re-read your comments and reply if you still think you’re representing a balanced view? “Puff piece” Kelley wrote it herself” etc. Sounds personal.K67 (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

You’re arguing that the opinion of those who stripped her isn’t acceptable but the opinion of the person who was stripped is acceptable (including an unproven allegation against those who stripped her). You don’t see that as contradictory? The South Korean governments reason for terminating her Honorary Consul role is every much as valid as her explanation of why it occurred. That covers BOTH sides of the issue. That goes to the very heart of a neutral point of view.

As a number of other editors have stated in the past, the article has read like a puff piece in the past. Now, after the recent changes it is a puff piece again. It again makes a number of false claims unsupported by the cited sources and gives a completely inaccurate picture of the subject.

Reading this article a person would never know that she’s mainly notable because her name is associated (fairly or unfairly) with a scandal. An unknowing person would believe she was a high powered diplomat and not a socialite who was given an honorific because she threw great parties for VIP’s. It leaves the impression that she worked for the military when she was actually an unpaid volunteer with no formal association with the military or US government (their words). It claims she is a philanthropist based on feeding the homeless one time and ignoring the cancer charity that gave zero money to curing cancer. That isn’t a neutral view.

Nearly all of this is in the sources already cited in the article.

Your claim in one of the sections above that only positive information with no negative information is neutral is also incorrect.

Ads where the subject supplied all the information and the legal complaint of her lawsuit against the government were some of the main sources for this article in the past and after recent changes its heading that way again. Previously, the article quoted one of her websites as a source. None of those are considered good sources under the current policy.

Fat Irish Guy (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. The only reason the subject is notable is the scandal, and it’s covered clearly in the article. If there are other sources that cite the Koreans’ reason for dismissing her, feel welcome to add them. If you read the whole talk page, your edits and comments do come off as personal, not neutral. K67 (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested dispute resolution

Circling back on this page, it appears Fat Irish Guy we disagree on how many negative vs. positive statements should be included on this page. Letting everyone know I submitted the page for dispute resolution by uninvolved parties. Hopefully this will resolve any questions on these issues.10Sany1? (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

To begin, I don't understand almost all of the "positive" statements. They are sourced, to sources that almost entirely say negative things about the subject. The sources are used to verify the positive statement, and it works, in a convoluted kind of way, and it is very misleading. In short, this person gains their notoriety almost entirely from negative things, and the sources reflect that, but an editor or two are cherry picking lines from the sources to prop up a persona. Beach drifter (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the Fat Irish Guy seems to be making disruptive edits. I reviewed his edits and everything posted on this talk page and he is going to extreme lengths to argue removal of content that may have been partially incorrect, rather than fixing them, he has been removing complete sentences. I feel he may have a personal vendetta. In addition @Beach drifter, I don't know which sources you mention are negative in nature! Most of them are about Kelley reporting issues to FBI or about her privacy rights being violated. I do not think they are in any way negative, just bad things that happen to her. Could you point out which sources are "entirely negative" ? Webmaster862 (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

A Mess

This article is a biased twisted mess. Not even sure where to start. Beach drifter (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I left a message in the above thread. To say it is biased, makes it sound like there is a good and a bad, but the reality is there isn't anything bad. She was in the middle of FBI investigation and her privacy rights violated. She was just a victim, if you consider that negative, well it is, but that doesn't mean she is a good or bad person. The way you put it, it is as if someone purposely is leaving out negative info and only including positive info. Feel free to elaborate as to what should be added and what removed.Webmaster862 (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

You are making your own bias clear. Just the statement that her rights were actually violated is suspect, I do not see any sources showing a court ruling to that effect. The reality is, she dropped the lawsuit. Every positive statement here is a cherry picked statement from sources that actually describe nothing at all positive about her or the situation she found herself in. Beach drifter (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

A mess in what way exactly?

There are editors here who are suggesting that this article is biased and overly positive reflection of Jill Kelley -- as articulated above by Fat Irish Guy + Beah Drifter most recently. Yet I have not seen explanation on what exactly the negative facts ARE that have been unfairly excluded?

It might be quite helpful if those factoids and their corresponding references can be placed in a nice bullet list, here on the talk page. Is there anyone who can do that to help move this discussion along?

In researching the topic, the news and the edits made in 2020, I've seen:

• edits deleting reliable references
• edits deleting statements claiming that there is no reliable source for the data when that source no longer exists because editor deleted it earlier
• any remotely positive statements that can be turned negative, have been
• edits claiming that the reference is bad; that it does not contain the text it claims to (when if you read the article and do a simple CTRL+F search, you can easily find the correspending content

My observation from watching this page evolve AND reading all the articles surrounding this subject, is that the article itself is not really postive at all, I'm sure the Kelleys are not thrilled to be part of the media circus that was the Petraeus/Broadwell affair scandal, nor be the scapegoats thrown to the media to draw attention away from the real problem. And it appears that someone is paying to have various people slander Kelley in Wikipedia, 9 years after-the-fact?

Anyone who actually takes the time to read some of these articles will realize that Kelley did nothing wrong, she was sucked into a scandal of an affair between Petraeus and his biographer. And the only reason Kelley was even in the middle of all of that was because Petraeus's girfriend started sending threatening emails to Kelley, who then contacted the FBI about it. Kelley was unaware of the affair between Petraeus and his biographer, and simply reported the cyber-stalking to the FBI who then uncovered the affair and the whole thing exploded, ending wiht Petraeus resigning. The fact that Kelley was sucked into the middle of that is not her fault, so it's not clear why there seem to be Wiki editors who are 1) that involved in an almost 9-year old story.... and 2) are intent on discrediting Kelley in any way they conceivable can. 10SFan (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

First, your opinions, or my opinions, about Kelley and how she was treated are completely irrelevant here. Talking about that makes you sound biased. Nor does anyone here care about how the Kelleys feel. What we care about is what the sources say. The sources used for this article certainly do not gloat about Kelley like the article does. I'm not saying "negative things are missing", I'm saying the sources are used to put a spin on this, when the sources themselves don't have that spin. I have not seen any evidence here that any editors might be paid to write negative things, only the opposite. It seems possible in this case that an editor or editors know just enough about Wikipedia policy to write a fluff piece that just barely passes muster. Beach drifter (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

What I stated is not my opinion, it's the facts pulled from the reliable articles used as references throughout for example, reading the actual emails between Kelly and the others, as well as the news coverage of the stories in 2012. Again, anyone who bothers to do the research and read the actual articles will understand the facts. I posted specific points, in an articulate and concise manner, asking the editors who feel there isn't enough negative information in the article to state EXACTY what negative information is missing. Nobody has done that yet. Then you suggested that you're NOT saying negative facts are missing but rather that what is written is not factual. Ok, just prove that out. Give some specific examples, in a concise manner to explain exactly what facts have been twisted? I'm sure any editor/admin presented clear facts would be easily able to ascertain whether or not the information is indeed factual or not. It sounds like you just don't like the facts and would prefer, for some unknown reason, for Kelley to be completely discredited. Why would that be? I am not clear on how you feel this page "gloats" as you say about Kelley because you have not provided any examples of the twisted, gloated untruths. If you can only say "it's a puff piece" I'd say that fails the discussion criteria of being specific, concise and factual. Debates should be relatively simple to resolve - what are the facts? You are entitled to the opinion that it's a "puff piece" whatever that is, but as you did clearly articulate above - opinions are irrelevant.10SFan (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to continue this conversation. I have no obligation to respond in any specific manner that is dictated by another editor. I will be working to improve the article. Beach drifter (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Photo

The picture on this article has previously been deleted at Wikimedia commons as being a copyright volition. Beach drifter (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Titles

I'm tempted to remove the title of "diplomat" or "diplomatic advisor" entirely from this article, unless some RS's can be found that state such. This reliable source indicates there is no reason to call her such. Beach drifter (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Just ran into your message here. This issue has been discussed in depth, if you check the above messages. The consensus was to call her "diplomatic advisor" along with other things. She is not being called "diplomat." The article you refer to does not say she is not a "diplomatic advisor" but says she "probably don’t have ‘diplomatic inviolability’" ... not the same thing! If you read most of the articles about her, her work has included advising diplomats. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Minor edits

Added a couple of citations, one of current news (aid to afghan refugees) and another which is older (2014) as related in topic but was not in the original article in that she met with the Pope back in 2014 along with catholic Bishops in the Middle East to discuss genocide and persecution of Christians in the Middle East. PoliticMurray (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Unproductive editing

I loosely follow this page and have made some minor edits to it’s content over time. I noticed that some accurate, sourced content was removed for no apparent reason. While many of the edits to the page are constructive, someone who seems closely related to the topic and not a fan of Jill_Kelley appears to come around and make changes that are not productive in any way. Removing philanthropic content and recent news of hosting the security team of FLOTUS is current, relevant and well-documented. I’m going to replace the content that should not have been removed, assuming good faith and that it was an accidental oversight by users Captainllama and PluckyOriginal. WikiDidi99 (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you WikiDidi99 for your attention to this article. You are mistaken to infer that I have feelings one way or the other for the subject, of whom I was only vaguely aware before reading the article. My concern is for the quality of the article in particular and Wikipedia in general.

On the other hand parts of the article as I found it did appear to have been written with a positive bias towards the subject, or at least by an editor or editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia Manual of Style and policies. I also removed some apparent redundancies that, it seems to me, repeated information or imparted none.

While much of my edits have been retained, this edit reinstated the information that Kelley's advocacy of privacy rights was driven by the Petraeus scandal. Given that it follows directly on from the section detailing the Petraeus scandal and Kelley's consequent privacy rights lawsuit and advocacy, I am surprised it is deemed necessary to repeat this information in the very next sentence, but it can stand for now.

The next edit is problematic. The first passage is apparently supported by three citations but two are dead links from 2003 and the third isn't a proper citation at all, leading only to the Wikipedia article for The Tampa Tribune. And to support what? That the Kelleys "are active in prominent social circles". That serves no purpose for the reader other than pure MOS:PUFFERY, it is not for Wikivoice to denominate to the reader who is and isn't "prominent". Their actual philanthropic activities and with whom they associate are quite properly detailed in the rest of the section, that opening sentence is both redundant and unencyclopedic.

The second passage in the edit is even more problematic: the content makes multiple fairly substantial assertions about living persons but the source quite simply doesn't support any of the claims made. WP:BLP is taken very seriously and this violation must be removed until it can be properly supported. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Additional: As I was writing the above Hero921 was re-adding unsourced, unencyclopedic content. This passage: "She uses her expertise to help companies navigate global issues andin [sic] doing so meets regularly with high-profile figures including royals, Presidents, Prime Ministers and Parliamentarians" might very well be true (or even not) but that is not the point. More than for any other area of Wikipedia, biographies of living persons absolutely have to have rock-solid citations to reliable sources – this is a legal matter. And it is plainly wp:puffery, the properly sourced facts in the article make clear that Jill Kelley is a very accomplished woman; unencyclopedic gushing actually detracts from that. Cheers again, Captainllama (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Ahoy there CaptainLlama, thanks for the reply. I 1,000% agree with you about the integrity needed and special care paid to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and agree that there have been many unproductive edits to the page. The majority of which (some blatant, some less so) appear to seek to remove anything positive about Mrs. Kelley and wish to only include on the page her involvement in the Petraes-Broadwell affair, and adopt the slant that Ms.Kelley was somehow to blame. I can only imagine these editors are not acting in good faith are have been hired by a person (or persons) who hold a grudge. Wikipedia is not a battleground and should not be used as so. I did see many of your good edits, and agree with them. I also agree that the insertion by User:Hero921 in the initial paragraph was bordering on questionable, but is not inaccurate to have there since it is a paraphrase of what Mrs.Kelley’s role, seemingly before and after the scandal was and still is. Recall that Wikipedia is to be written from the editor’s language, not taken word for word from article as that is Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Just because a particular fact is positive doesn’t make it Wikipedia:Wikipuffery. But that particular piece is not why I write back, but rather your removal of the facts and citations regarding the FLOTUS visit to Nantucket and the Kelly home hosting the overflow of security staff, which is well cited in the Nantucket periodicals offered with the fact. Why would you remove that particular piece? It’s accurate, cited and current. Also - removing the piece about the Kelleys being prominent in social circles - that is a accurate fact supported by nearly all the citations on the page. it is not used as a direct quote but is an editors summary of all the collective news on the topic and it is relevant because that’s what put Kelley on the map in the first place, the connection to these high-ranking officials, as well as her previous honorary titles. Those are clearly prominent social circles and you cannot argue that the Kelleys were not in those circles if not central to them at least in Tampa. Cited links do go bad after a while but that is no reason to remove the associated content as the media archiving a piece does not mean it never happened or wasn’t true. If we are looking at dated facts and dead links then half of Wikipedia should be deleted. So for these reasons, I’ll respectfully disagree with you that those particular 2 facts don’t belong in the article and I will replace them. I will however agree with you that Hero’s addition to the lead paragraph might be a bit fluffy and will support you on it’s continued exclusion if Hero comes a’ calling to put it back. Would you have a problem living with this compromise? WikiDidi99 (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2