Talk:Stephanie Herseth Sandlin

Where's the commentary on maligning her character?

I've seen some reference to crediting Herseth with spurious pregnancies and love affairs and I think that commentary on that would add to discussion of this year's elections. Not to mention the "Swift-boating" of other candidates.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DakotaGypsy (talk • contribs) 17:17, 12 August 2006

Information on activities in Congress?

Since Herseth Sandlin has been in Congress nearly three years, I think this entry deserves more discussion on her activities in Congress, such as committee assignments, bill sponsorship, ratings, and so forth.Ball&Chain 21:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Dead "Reference" link

Item 2, pointing at the Argus newspaper, is no longer available. I'm not sure how this should be edited, just pointing it out for others here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.5.165 (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Steve King petition

I've started a discussion regarding the notability of a series of similar edits, including one on this article, over on my talk page: User talk:Arbor832466#Steve King petition. Please feel free to weigh in! Arbor832466 (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Placing Noem as "elect" is standard practice.

This needs to quit being removed. I think it's the same guy doing it over and over, but whatever it is, it needs to stop. It is very standard practice to do it this way. LHM 19:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think it is the standard practice. Wikipedia is generally very careful about not putting in political successors until they're actually sworn in. Otherwise it can be construed as crystal-balling, since its presuming a sting of events that have not yet happened. Marking the successor as "elect" doesn't really change that. I really only see the case for adding successors in early pushed by POV editors, though I don't know if that's the case here.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 21:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I did an (admittedly not scientific) spot check of a bunch of outgoing politicians (for instance, Ron Klein, Jennifer Granholm, George LeMieux, Russ Feingold and others) and it does seem to be standard to include the "-elect" politician as successor. I can't find any written guideline anywhere so I guess it's whatever the editors on a particular article want to do. Personally I think including the presumed successor is a good idea. Kelly ^hi! 21:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

After the last presidential election, some editors wrote a draft policy at Wikipedia:Post-election edit war syndrome. Though that's never been adopted, it does indicate that its appropriated to list incoming elected officials in various templates, such as infoboxes. However, what you're saying there is "Kristi Noem will be the next representative", and that use of the future tense is what I still have trouble with in these listings, since an incoming official could still be struck by lighting, hit by a train, or for some reason be unable to be sworn in, which in turn is why I brought up WP:CRYSTALBALL.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 22:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I definitely see where you're coming from, but how often do those events happen, really? It's pretty much a virtual certainty that Noem will be the new SD rep in January. If something does happen, it's pretty easy to change. But yeah, to clear up confusion, it probably would be worthwhile to propose some guideline - maybe at WP:MOSBIO or Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government? I'm not sure where to take it, but there are some different styles being used in these articles. Kelly ^hi! 02:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• CRYSTALBALL has absolutely no bearing here. The precedent, plus WP:COMMONSENSE dictate that placing the "-elect" in the successor box just makes sense. LHM 02:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  I also find it repugnant that my motives are questioned in such a straightforward case as this. LHM 02:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Lobbying?

The article says Herseth Sandlin is a lobbyist. That's not true. She took a job with a law firm OFW in Washington, DC, which works in ag law and Indian law. She isn't lobbying. Besides, former members of congress aren't even allowed to lobby for a year after their terms end. To call her a lobbyist is an outright lie. Can we change this on the page please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.185.8 (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin is working as a lawyer, she is legally prohibited from lobbying members of Congress at this time. To cite her as a current lobbyist is inaccurate and malignant. Any inaccuracies will be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.39.178.214 (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done I have removed the blatant BLP violations. What IPs 75 and 174 say is absolutely true, and one of the very sources cited by Corbridge for the propositions that she is now working as a lobbyist, and has a profession as a lobbyist, actually proves the opposite is true: "Herseth Sandlin, a lawyer licensed to practice in her home state, is prohibited from lobbying Members or staff in the House or Senate for one year, but she may provide strategic advice to clients. When her cooling-off period ends, Herseth Sandlin may register to lobby. 'That type of contact, after the first year, is definitely something I’m interested in doing,' she said." That should settle the matter--Regards --KeptSouth (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

She works for a lobbying firm. She is not working for a law firm. Those are the facts. Please anon editor stick to the facts.--Corbridge (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Has she registered as a lobbyist? That seems like a good way to make the determination. After all, not everyone who works for a lobbying firm is a lobbyist any more than everyone who works at a law firm is an attorney. Also, Anon, to your point, I'm pretty sure she can't lobby the House for a year, but she could conceivably lobby the senate, governors, or state legislatures. Arbor8 (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No that is not the best way to determine. The best way is to read the article. In the article it states clearly that she is a principal in a lobbying firm. It does not state that she is secretary. If you are a principal in a law firm then you are a lawyer. You are not a legal assistant, you are not a law clerk, you are not a legal secretary, you can only be a lawyer. If you are principal then you are a part owner. If you own a lobbying firm then you are a lobbyist. I'm baffled that anyone would think otherwise. She is a lobbyist.--Corbridge (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I place a link on her page to the firm that she became a principal in. They describe themselves as a lobbying firm.--Corbridge (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect - OFW (Law) describes itself as a law firm. "The Nation’s Premier FDA and USDA Law Firm, Serving Clients Before Federal Agencies, Courts, and Congress" - Regards KeptSouth (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, KeptSouth you are the one who is incorrect. They describe themselves as a law and a lobbying firm. In the press release issued to announced Herseth Sandlin's joining the firm they use phrase "Founded in 1979, OFW Law is a law and policy advocacy firm that has become a leader in agriculture and FDA regulated matters. . ." You can review there own words here. One of the reasons that they have to, by law, describe themselves that way is that they have non-lawyers working for them as lobbyists. A dead on example is the former Secretary of Agriculture under Ronald Reagan John R. Block, who they specifically refer to in the press release announcing Herseth Sandlin. The attorney professional responsibility codes for all 50 states does not allow non-attorneys to split fees with attorneys. Please check your facts before you make an incorrect statement as you did above.--Corbridge (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It was incorrect to describe the firm as simply a "lobbying firm". As I responded on my talk page: [1]

Thank you for your note. OFW (law) is a law firm. Some of their lawyers lobby, some do not. You stated unequivocally that it is a lobbying firm, and you were incorrect. I have not read your latest post re. this on the Herseth Sandlin talk page, but as long as you do not intend to keep asserting HS is a lobbyist now, (which is incorrect and which is tantamount to saying she is violating the law, and which is a clear violation WP:BLP policy), and as long as you don't keep insisting that the firm is a "lobbying firm", there should be no further reason to continue this discussion or to talk about irrelevant issues such as secretaries and other non-attorneys at OFW (law). I do believe that I provided sufficient support for all the statements I made on the talk pages, and on the article page itself. I have recently added quote marks to a quote you added to the article as well as attribution, but I do not intend to edit further there for a while, unless of course, I see more violations of BLP policy.

— Regards - KeptSouth, 3:34 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)

However, my response was not sufficient for you and you appear to want to continue the discussion, so I have posted my comment here, though this really should be a settled issue, a case of WP:DEADHORSE. - Regards KeptSouth (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? Seeing whether she is a registered lobbyist is not the best way to determine whether she is a lobbyist? I'm going to poke around further and see whether she's registered or not. If not, I think "principal at the lobbying firm XYZ" would be a better descriptor. Arbor8 (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbor, please see my discussion above, and text of paragraph 5 of this short article in Roll Call which settles the matter. The facts were contrary to what Corbridge was apparently mistakenly asserting. I believe we should all bear WP:BLP policy in mind, which says, among other things that: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject." -Regards KeptSouth (talk) 08:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right -- I based the suggested wording above on the assumption that OFW did indeed describe itself as simply a "lobbying firm." Seeing as that is not the case, I no longer believe my previous suggestion is appropriate. Arbor8 (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources for BLPs

I removed some edits because I have serious reservations about including characterizations ("was criticized for" "in which her husband's lobbying became an issue") in BLPs that are sourced entirely to opinion columns in partisan publications (in this case, a column by Mr. Carney of the Washington Examiner). I think we can do better, and if we can't find a better, less biased source then we should err on the side of not including in the BLP. Just to be clear, I'm fine with the Examiner as a source -- my concerns lie much more with the fact that the source is an opinion column, and what is being drawn from the column are characterizations, not facts. Arbor8 (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No. You are simply not right. You eliminated a whole section that is NOT, in any way, based upon the opinions of Mr. Carney of the Washington Examiner. I quoted an interview with Sandlin that was published in a newspaper in Mitchell, South Dakota called The Daily Republic. The article was published on March 2, 2011 and it was written by Republic reporter Tom Lawrence. The most recent version that you completely eliminated gave the name of the newspaper and the city of the newspaper. I provided a citation to the newspaper in the references section. You could have clicked on that link and read the article yourself. I will restore the notable, on-topic information that is presented in NPOV manner. In the future please check the sources before you engage in edits. Based upon your comments and your editing it seems that you did not check the source before your reverted it.--Corbridge (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

2010 Campaign section

I removed the blow-by-blow of one particular issue in the 2010 campaign because, 1) The topic has its own article; 2) It was NPOV - the level of detail was WP:UNDUE and verged on WP:COATRACK 3) It relied far too heavily on a single source. Note that I am NOT disputing the facts of the case, so there's no need to argue that point, or that it should be excluded entirely. Just that it needs to be condensed, which is what I did. I also did not remove any of the refs. Arbor8 (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Just re-consolidated while leaving all relevant info in the article (Noem's accusation, Herseth Sandlin's response, and the opinions of Sunlight Foundation, Public Citizen and the RCJ editorial board). Don't think Roll Call's characterization is really relevant, nor is the RC quote about Sunlight and PC.

As a side note - Corbridge, if you're going to insist that I explain all of my edits on the Talk page here, I would appreciate if you would extend the same courtesy. Thanks! Arbor8 (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You cut down the section way too much. Sunlight and Common Causes critics are notable and need to be left in the article. BTW, coatrack applies to a whole article, not one section. Also, where her husband works in very, very relevant since he was lobbying on behalf of legislation that she was co-sponsoring.--Corbridge (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I left Sunlight and Public Citizen's positions in there, just refactored w/o the direct quote from Roll Call. As to where her husband works, that point has been made, repeatedly, in this article, and does not need to be reiterated in a section about HER personal life. Arbor8 (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

House of Reps Race, 2010

I see that many of the edits that have been made and objected to here are also being made over at United States House of Representatives election in South Dakota, 2010. Do we really need to go relitigate this entire debate over there? While more detail may be warranted in that article, almost all of the NPOV issues are the same. Arbor8 (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There are NO NPOV issues with any of the items over there. I debated and discussed all of that information with KeptSouth and he did not see NPOV issues. I only cut it down here because you thought that it bloated the article--undue weight. I didn't agree but I agreed to cut it down as a compromise. But let me repeat that work from earlier does not have any NPOV issues.--Corbridge (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Quote field in refs

I'm concerned about how the quote field is being used in this article -- specifically, to shoehorn in content that can't make it into the article on its own merits and to cast the appearance of impropriety by inserting excessive references to Max Sandlin's lobbying. The purpose of the quote field in the reference template is to provide context for non-online references, references behind a pay wall, or to help find a small part of a very large source if page or paragraph numbers aren't available. None of these is the case here. Put significant facts in the main text, if they belong there, rather than using the quote field. Arbor8 (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the quote field is not only for the thing that you claim that it is. The quote field can be used for many things and your attempt to argue that it is only for the two that you outlined is false. Also, I was not using the quote field to "shoehorn in content that can't make it into the article". That is an attempt by you to read my mind and I believe that is inappropriate so don't make up what you believe is in my mind put it down in writing then shoot that strawman because that is also inappropriate. I put the quotes in because the quotes back up directly what is in the sentence above. Now, you believe that there is "excessive references to Max Sandlin's lobbying". However, I don't believe that there is. However, if you would rather then I can move the quote information and work it into the article. But once again that is me compromising, not you. I really don't see compromise on your part. For example, you believe (and I am not reading your mind this is what you stated) that quote fields can only be used for two purposes, but there is no hard and fast rule such as that, it is only your opinion. It is not a rule. I might point out that you don't own the article. See WP:OWN.--Corbridge (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I never claimed ownership of the article, Corbridge. Please calm down. I'm becoming frustrated by what appears to be a pattern of your responding to content-related criticism with claims of personal attacks and impropriety. Honestly, it's exhausting, and I'm not the first editor to call you out on it. So, let's just stick to the matter at hand, which is the use of the quote field in this article. I think it would be lovely if you could incorporate any content you believe is appropriate into the article, in collaboration with other editors. Arbor8 (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No. You cannot comment on any "pattern". I pointed out that you do not own the article. I pointed out and I will point out again that the quote field is a valid field and it can be used in any number of ways. It is not limited to just what you believe that it is for. I have grown tired of your "pattern" of what appears to be creating rules for Wikipedia when there are edits that you do not personally like from a style point of view. I believe that the quotes add information that is notable and important but does not necessarily fit into the flow of the article. I have grown tired of your belief that if you don't like the quote field others cannot use it or it can only be used as you see fit. There are no rules such as you outline above. It is just your particular personal preference, nothing more. I have grown tired of your "pattern" in telling others that those quote fields can only be used according to your personal belief in style.--Corbridge (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041217012212/http://www.hersethforcongress.org/nr_103004.htm to http://www.hersethforcongress.org/nr_103004.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)