Jump to content

Talk:Paula Broadwell/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Website is down

The first Website listed is down. Paula Broadwell website is the listing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.150.32 (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Reference 5 doesn't substantiate the High School Data

The Bismarck Tribune link cited for "where she was homecoming queen and valedictorian for the class of 1991" doesn't actually mention those details.

However, the official Century High School web site does: http://www2.chs.bismarck.k12.nd.us/HallofFame/2006%20inductees/Broadwell.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Serhienko (talk • contribs) 20:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


Topics from feedback

Just went through user-supplied feedback. Marked a number of submissions as resolved by other contributors. Most common request is for a photo. Three requests regarding her religious affiliation (I don't have an opinion as to how important that is). One request regarding her connection to Israel; I found this link http://www2.chs.bismarck.k12.nd.us/HallofFame/2006%20inductees/Broadwell.htm [1]to be an interesting starting place which refers to her work there and in other countries. Although she's currently most notable for allegedly being the one involved with General Petraeus, it would seem there is a lot of other information which people would like to see, and which would be appropriate to include as this article is expanded. Oops. Forgot signature. Gmporr (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What is "user-supplied feedback?" I don't see any requests for her photo on the talk page and was not aware WP had another mechanism for "feedback" on an article. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Paula_Broadwell Toddst1 (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - I'd seen those "Help improve this page" boxes at the bottom of the articles but never paid attention to them and now I see there's a "View reader feedback" link at the top of the talk page. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I first noticed the feature via a "Feedback from my watched pages" link (which goes to Special:ArticleFeedbackv5Watchlist) from Special:Watchlist Gmporr (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

typo

Petraeus' name is mispelled in this sentence: She began a doctoral dissertation that included a case study of his leadership, with Patreaeus fully cooperating.[12]Finedawdler (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Gmporr (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

non sequiter

Why are we quoting her about how she got child care from family to do her research? its nice, but doesnt seem very relevant to anything, unless its being used as a veiled jab at her affair (not sure how that would even work as a jab). If there is a reason, i dont see it.(mercurywoodrose)99.35.50.0 (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done BTW, it's non sequitur. Toddst1 (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Her picture

Guys, any pictures of her that may be in the public domain? --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 00:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)  Done

 Not donePlease see Wikipedia:NFCC#8 and stop adding that photo to the article. Find one in PD or leave it out. Toddst1 (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Not true, I fixed it --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 02:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
This image use is a violation of policy. I have removed it. Can someone delete it? I never bother with Wikimedia uploads because they are impossible to navigate. Jokestress (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

User keeps removing image

I would like to ask other editors about User:Kelly whom keeps removing the image of Paula Broadwell that I keep adding to the article, I have provided all the correct information of this image under fair use, it is my belief this user has ulterior motives as it can be seen in his user page that this user either identifies or is part of the military rendering his editions biased. I have had problems with this user before while editing the Sarah Palin article. This is the image in question [1] Thanks --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 03:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I am adding the image again, since the user mentioned above has no given any specific reason why the image does not fit under the fair use clause. Thanks --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 03:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
This kind of use is not allowed under our policies. Please do not re-add it. For details, see WP:PUI. Jokestress (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Notability

This sounds like all her notabiity is related to Petraeus. Why does this article need to exist separately from the one on Petraeu? --DHeyward (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

She's starting to get a fair amount of direct attention. I agree that she may not notable at this instant but I would not be surprised if next week magazines feature articles on "The woman who torpedoed General Petraeus' career." I know - no WP:CRYSTAL allowed on Wikipedia but let's give it a few days.
This article is could survive an WP:AFD nomination per WP:ONEEVENT as Paula Broadwell played a large role in the ending of David Petraeus' career which is getting a lot of coverage along with her name.
FWIW, My local public library has four copies of her Petraeus biography. One is on the hold shelf, two are in transit to hold shelves, and the fourth was checked out today. The books had been checked out a total of 23 times indicating we are seeing a recent burst of interest in the book. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
She's independently noteworthy per WP:AUTHOR. Toddst1 (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
She's not notable per WP:AUTHOR as the WP article does not show how she could meet any one or more of the five points listed on WP:AUTHOR.
However, she's getting enough independent coverage that she likely qualifies as notable. For example.
--Marc Kupper|talk 00:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Even before this affair being made public, this person would've easily passed WP:NOTABILITY and particularly WP:AUTHOR criteria 3 as her best-selling book had received a great amount of reviews and she herself was a guest on multiple media outlets, including even The Daily Show. --Oakshade (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed in spades. Her passing WP:Author has nothing to do with any contents of a Wikipedia article about her or any dalliance. Toddst1 (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

High School Details

Some details here may be of interest to include in the article: http://www.chs.bismarckschools.org/chs/chshof/2006/academics/ Gmporr (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Are Twitter Profile Pics Public Domain?

https://twitter.com/paulabroadwell Gmporr (talk) 09:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless they say so, no. Toddst1 (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 November 2012

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.As stated in the template you added, the request must be of the form "please change X to Y." The entire cut/paste article below has been removed. Please do not paste it back. If you want specific changes made, propose them here with a new {{editrequest}} Toddst1 (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Marriage date

I can't seem to find any mention of the date of her marriage to Scott Broadwell. Could someone find it and add it to the infobox using {{marriage}}? --Auric (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Prior speedy deletion / history

I noted in the history that an early version of this article was created in January 2012 and speedily deleted in February. Oddly an anonymous IP editor added in that <redacted actual BLP violation> about an hour after it was created -- back in January. (screengrab on my crappy blog <redact link to BLP violation>). I presume this history was only restored when the article was recreated?--Milowent • hasspoken 18:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Y restored the old revisions on November 11. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think this anonymous person editing from an IP located to San Jose saw the Daily Show and felt inclined to speculate. I don't think the article should include this even if other media points to it. That said, I think article history should be automatically restored with an article's recreation so that the history is a meaningful one.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Bdell555, the article history is automatically restored when an article is restored. This is the edit in January and right after that the same IP editor corrected the spelling of Petraeus' name. As this editor did not provide a reliable source for the comment it was deleted from the article.
At present the only "media" notice of the edit and retraction is this article. I don't think that one is reliable enough to allow for re-insertion of the comment along with the background that it was added anonymously, particularly as the "many conquests" part has not been documented/sourced. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Gawker.com has become a very respected and highly cited news outlet over the years.--Oakshade (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Since I noted it first, I'll let other editors decide when/if the fact becomes notable, or more likely, when additional facts come out that either make it notable or not.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, since this discussion has been redacted, I didn't intend to perpetuate a "BLP violation" by questioning the history of this article. Its clear that multiple edits have been made to wikipedia by editors with some knowledge of the cast of involved characters.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The interesting bit is that now that the inside information about Broadwell's (alleged) affair with Petraeus is public knowledge, somehow, the complete article history that Wikipedia keeps has been censored to remove the allegation that Broadwell and Petraeus were lovers from the Wikipedia history log. Today two things are clearly public information and clearly newsworthy and noteworthy: first, whether they were lovers, since that led to his public resignation; and second, that someone in January knew it and posted it to Wikipedia. The fact of the January Wikipedia edit has now appeared in many credible news outlets, including Slate.com, Dailymail.co.uk, the Huffington Post, and many other less notable outlets; a simple web search for "wikipedia petraeus broadwell" reveals them. Several of them include screen shots that reveal the information that some Wikipedia editor is attempting to suppress. It may have been appropriate to censor the edit history when the edit was a mere unsupported allegation about a non-notable person's personal life. It is no longer appropriate to censor the edit history. I can't even tell from the logs WHO suppressed the edit history. I don't believe that Wikipedia should be involved in this 1984-ish "rewriting of history" on a notable and newsworthy subject, particularly when Wikipedia itself is part of the story. I hereby request that the entire edit history of the Paula Broadwell page be restored to public visibility. Gnuish (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned by media

Forgive me if I'm overlooking something or am otherwise mistaken, but it seems a bit inconsistent to link all the media reports about this article given the result of the discussion on the noticeboard. AgnosticAphid talk 17:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess what I'm asking is, should we remove these references if aspects of the troubling comment could be a BLP violation, as it seems like they decided at the noticeboard? I reworded the discussion of this in the scandal article to be slightly more vague. AgnosticAphid talk 17:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I think its absurd to try to censor what has been reported worldwide. It was a BLP violation, and wikipedia worked well to remove it from the active article. There are negative deleted edits out there about Jill Kelley as well (from many months ago), which no one is doing anything about.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
There is more to the deleted sentence than the rumor about Petraeus and Broadwell, as you recognize, but I see what you're saying. It just seems like there's no reason to attract additional attention to articles that quote the problematic comment. But on the other hand, perhaps the cat is already too far out of the bag. AgnosticAphid talk 18:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
If it's been reported by other outlets, there's zero libel. Agree with Milowent that it's absurd to block out content on only Wikipedia of something that's been reported all over the world.--Oakshade (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
That's wrong. Re-publishing a libel can itself be libel in some circumstances. There is a difference between blocking out the fact that somebody mentioned a rumor in January that was later substantiated by the FBI and avoiding mention of the additional BLP violation in the sentence that contained that rumor. AgnosticAphid talk 20:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The edits should never have been restored in the first place. Y had an agenda and ignored multiple policies when he restored them. By restoring the edits, the admin repeated the defamation, an instance of extremely poor judgment. That's why they were re-deleted. It has been discussed on ANI and closed. Toddst1 (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Not in this case. There will be no one suing Wikipedia for linking media sources just as those media sources won't be sued. Consult a lawyer if you don't believe me.--Oakshade (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for being vague. You're right, I doubt that posting links to the media articles constitutes re-publication without a summary. But just because the media posted about an article on Wikipedia does not necessarily mean that Wikipedia is free to repeat whatever defamatory or libelous statements are made, contrary to your statement.--AgnosticAphid talk 23:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
There was no repetition of defamation because now there's at least a partial Libel#Truth defence and there wasn't before. What's absurd here is that the history actually flattered Wikipedia with respect to defamation because it showed how ordinary non-administrative processes were able to remove the material even on a then very obscure article. In any case, your campaign here, Todd, is a classic backfire. You demanded suppression, or continued suppression, of something that was back in the obscurity of the article's origins and this sparked intense interest in just what was being buried such that now it's tacked to the top of this Talk page and currently in the widely read Petraus scandal article as well. Who's going to scrub this mess away now? Note where I said earlier on this page we should restore the history but having done that leave it down there. You evidently didn't agree with that view, called in the censors, and now we've got a whack-a-mole situation.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Brian, as you've been told on ANI and on User talk:Beeblebrox, and now here, WP:AUSC is thataway. Toddst1 (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The statement that had been added/removed is likely still libelous. I for one would not would not support re-adding it unless the original editor was identified and he/she reworded it. For example, what was meant by "conquest?" You could say of a journalist known for digging up the data that he/she had scored yet another conquest and people would understand that it was not the sexual variety. Broadwell is a researcher and writer who scored in-depth access to Petraeus and so far it's resulted in one book. Was the access and resulting book directly connected to their resulting affair? We don't know. In my mind the statement was too open to interpretation. It's an old trick to drop vague comments that lead the audience into thinking the person commenting knows more that he/she does. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
While I am sympathetic, I think it would be helpful to be slightly more oblique about this sort of topic in the future, lest we repeat the problematic statements endlessly.AgnosticAphid talk 07:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Date of birth appears to be 11/9/1972

Probably would be good to get more confirmation than this, but (ironically) 11/9/1972 appears to be her date of birth as per this quote from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49660205#.UJ33jnYX5OV [2] : "Broadwell, a lieutenant colonel in the Army reserves, had thought about making a parachute jump to celebrate her 40th birthday on Nov. 9, but decided instead to offer it to Bixler, who shares her dream." Gmporr (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, so is she a Major or a Lt. Col. in the reserves? We currently have this (uncited) sentence in the article: "She served in the United States Army and is a Major in the United States Army Reserve." Unless someone has a citation for this, we should adjust this. KConWiki (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Good find, Gmporr. The Lt. Col. was a recent promotion from this summer. Her LinkedIn still says Lt. Col. select. FYI, you mean "coincidentally," not "ironically." Jokestress (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
As I'm a fairly inexperienced editor, I decided to just list the date of birth reference here, and left it up to others to decide whether or not it was an appropriate/adequate reference. Seemed that there was agreement among talk page readers that it was ok, and thus someone added it (way too many revisions for me to see when it got added, unless there's a better tool that will show all changes in one file like I've seen in some revision control systems). But I see now it's been removed, again prompting numerous feedback requests for the date. Wondering about the reasoning, stated as "not at all supported by citation". See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paula_Broadwell&diff=prev&oldid=522408692 for revision changes & comments. Just trying to understand the specifics which disqualify the reference from being adequate. Gmporr (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The source said she celebrated her birthday on that date - that doesn't mean it's her birthday. See WP:SYN. Toddst1 (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm honestly confused about where the line is supposed to be drawn with regard to synthesis. I suppose I can buy the possible interpretation of that article as meaning something other than that particular date being her 40th birthday. But then, how is the term "anti-terrorism expert" not a synthesis from sources 1 or 2? Source lists a number of positions which she held. What if she sucked at all of them? Then she very likely wouldn't be an expert. Gmporr (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
In German it is written that her b'day is Nov 9, 1972, read this sentence: Die Autorin der flammenden Petraeus-Biografie, die am Tag von Petraeus' Rücktritt 40 Jahre alt wurde, hat einen ehrgeizigen Karriereweg zurückgelegt www.stern.de/politik/ausland/petraeus-geliebte-paula-broadwell-mit-den-waffen-einer-frau-1924298.html?srtest=1 JsWikiSanta (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a NY Times article which states definitively that she turned 40 on Friday, Nov 9, 2012, the day before the article was published. So I have re-added the birthdate. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I find this interesting: She was born four years after I was but she graduated from high school five years after I did. (No, I didn't start school a year early or skip a year.) I saw a report earlier this year on 60 Minutes about children who started school a year late because their parents thought they would have an advantage by being older than other kids in the same grade. Perhaps her parents did this (in the mid-to-late seventies), but if they did, they were way ahead of the trend. --anon 71.183.138.227 (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Grammar: First introduction of topic should not use article "the"

In the section "Petraeus affair", it starts off "... Jill Kelley began to receive emails ... FBI called Broadwell ... she admitted to the affair with Petraeus."

Grammatical problem: At this point, no affair has been previously mentionned, so there is no referant for the definite article "the". *what* affair is *the* affair?

Sure, people who already know the subject matter know what affair is being discussed, but in an encyclopedic article, terms ought to be defined before they are taken as already known by the reader.

IMO "the" should read "a" to be grammatically correct. If a WikiPedia expert agrees, please make that edit. (If I edit without explanation, somebody will revert, and if I edit with explanation, there's no way to link my edit to my explanation, so somebody will revert anyway.)

198.144.192.45 (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)

Well, I'm not an expert, and actually, the first time "affair" appears in the "petraeus affair" section it does say "an affair..." But the first time in the article that "affair" appears, in the lead, it did say "the affair," so I changed it. AgnosticAphid talk 19:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that somebody else independently found the problem that I had reported, and fixed it, but not having seen this talk entry he didn't think to note here that he'd had fixed it. Then you saw my fix-request, found it already fixed but without any comment here, browsed further, found the *other* similar problem I hadn't found, and fixed it, and reported just *your* fix here.
I spent a half hour looking through the revision history to see if I could find where the other person's edit occurred, clicking on each 'prev' link which is supposed to show differences before and after each single edit, but was unable to find either that other fix or your fix. The differences pages are inscrutable, IMO.
Maybe I'll have to write my own software to compare the sequential timestamped-version pages to generate differences pages in a more legible format.
198.144.192.45 (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)

Recent deletions

Inanutshellnews If you want to delete material sourced to the NY Times, Washington Post, ABC News, you're going to have to do a lot better than, "the material is slanderous because I said so." --NeilN talk to me 03:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It could be slanderous if she hadn't admitted. SamuelDay1 (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi SamuelDay1. Let's take the first three sentences deleted. "Broadwell is known for the extramarital affair ending the career of David Petraeus as the director of the CIA. An FBI investigation found Broadwell stalking senior military leaders and top U.S. Officials. The investigation was initiated when Broadwell sent anonymous threats to Petraeus, General John R. Allen and Dr. Scott Kelley, a cancer surgeon married to a woman with strong military and diplomatic connections." The first is a sourced statement of opinion. The second and third are sourced statements of fact. Slander (in the U.S.) is knowingly making a harmful false statement. The person admitting to the acts has nothing to do with it. For example, we call Conrad Black a felon even though he maintains he did nothing wrong. Now suppose one of the sources we use did indeed commit defamation. We would need other sources to confirm the defamation - not the opinions of Wikipedia editors like Inanutshellnews. --NeilN talk to me 18:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Bad English

Whatever 6th grader wrote this needs to more diligently study their grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.13 (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is unprotected so please fix whatever catches your eye. --NeilN talk to me 18:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletions

I've removed three sentences. The first, "An FBI investigation found Broadwell stalking senior military leaders and top U.S. officials.", cites a Tampa Tribune article which refers to allegations contained in a lawsuit against the FBI (not an investigation by the FBI), and furthermore the allegation is that "a senior military official" was stalked (not "leaders and top U.S. officials"). The second, "The investigation was initiated when Broadwell sent anonymous threats to Petraeus, General John R. Allen and Dr. Scott Kelley, a cancer surgeon married to a woman with strong military and diplomatic connections.", cites the same Tampa Tribune source, and a NY Times article. The Tampa Tribune again refers to allegations from a lawsuit, while the NY Times article confirms that Kelley and his wife received threatening emails, but not the others. I have replaced it with a sentence containing the verifiable statement. The third sentence consists of a first half, "According to court documents, Broadwell's emails alleged she was physically tracking top U.S. leaders and the Kelley family's whereabouts", which is difficult to make sense of (Broadwell is making allegations against herself?) again containing allegations from the same lawsuit against the FBI, and an unadjudicated court claim cannot be taken as verified. (It could of course be discussed in the context of the lawsuit, but not presented as a simple fact, as is the case here.) The second half of the sentence,"suspecting Broadwell had intercepted into Petraeus's emails.", makes no grammatical sense; whatever the four sources cited for the second half of the sentence may contain, they cannot make sense of the sentence to which they are appended. MayerG (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks MayerG. --NeilN talk to me 04:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks better than it was before. Unnecessary explanations had to be removed someday. SamuelDay1 (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www2.chs.bismarck.k12.nd.us/HallofFame/2006%20inductees/Broadwell.htm
  2. ^ [2]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paula_Broadwell/Archive_1&oldid=1137074806"