Talk:Jill Kelley

Syrian origin ?

The Khwam family is of Syrian origin.

I found this source that says her parents were Syrians

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a975/david-petraeus-scandal-kelley-sisters/

[[Sélim Khawam]] Whatsupkarren (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I propose a total reboot

If a few people are happy to work alongside me, I propose we pare this article back to a stub and line by line rebuilding using only quality references from reliable sources and very neutral language. It's languished for a long time with the COI-editing tag, even though the subject says it isn't true (I have no other information about that) and up above I see a lot of contentious back and forth rather than calm Wikipedia-style work to make a decent unbiased biography.

I plan to wait for comments until Thursday, and then decide next steps for whether I'll launch into this myself.

I have no conflict of interest here. Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I would be happy to help, Jimbo. I have no conflict of interest. = paul2520 💬 14:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Great! Should be fun! I hope to get some free time later this week but it could be next week - London Tech Week this week and lots to do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I dug into the history a bit, including reviewing frequent editors and learning more about Kelley and . There's a long history & several sockpuppet accounts have touched the page. Suffice it to say, the total reboot idea is valid.

I can't say I've done a total rework (at least not of an article this long), but am excited to collaborate on this.

Here's a tentative plan:

1. one of us starts Draft:Jill Kelley as if it were a new article, leveraging sources from this article or via new searches
2. once that article is in a reasonable state, replace the contents of this article & redirect the draft

• make sure the edit summary references Draft:Jill Kelley and/or this talk page (perhaps rewrite due to COI/UPE; see [[Draft:Jill Kelley]] and [[Talk:Jill Kelley]] for more context)

I'm happy to get started on this, possibly as early as tonight or tomorrow. = paul2520 💬 14:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: I started Draft:Jill Kelley, and would appreciate you reviewing/contributing. I've been more focused on the Bio thus far, which still needs more content. I started a Controversies section, and think both subsections could be expanded.

I will keep expanding as I can. = paul2520 💬 22:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Status update: the draft is at 577 words, compared to 1153 words in the original. I know there are some topics that aren't yet in the draft, and the Petraeus scandal section could definitely be expanded in the draft.

I'm also wondering how to expand the lead. For one thing, should I add the word "entrepreneur" or otherwise mention that she has founded several companies/organizations? = paul2520 💬 01:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: thoughts on me replacing the current article with the contents of the draft page, then continuing work here? = paul2520 💬 15:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: I decided to be bold and replace the page with the contents of the draft article.

I'm hoping you and others can help expand this article further, as it's shorter than it was before the rewrite. = paul2520 💬 21:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Defamation

I purposely made this edit to avoid defaming the subject above. Nearly all the information I am going to undo is outright defamatory and completely incorrect. According to [Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy](https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view), it is discouraging to write negative information about someone if you have personal grievances against them. There are countless articles discussing her diplomatic and scientific work, but these materials seem to be intentionally excluded from her Wikipedia page. This exclusion results in an outdated, inaccurate, and disparaging connotation of her work. Nonanee (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Nonanee. I disagree that anything has been intentionally excluded; see above for a thread regarding the recent rewrite due to suspected undisclosed paid editing/conflicts of interest. There is more work to be done & it would be great if you could add some additional reliable sources to Kelley's work.

Regarding "defamation", it would be helpful if you could be more specific. Would you point out sentences/wording that you have concerns with? = paul2520 💬 14:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I can report that the biggest concern that the subject has (I have no idea who Nonanee is, and won't speculate on it) is the claim - which is no doubt in what are normally reliable sources - that the charity filed for bankruptcy. As far as I have been able to determine, it did not, although it did apparently go to zero, and then dormant for several years, although revived at a later day. I believe we can take note of the broader context and find more accurate wording.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

COI editing

Based on behavior and their stated intent, it is obvious that several editors are engaging in on-going undisclosed COI editing here. The statement from Jimbo Wales is disturbing. It is obvious that subject of the article has contacted him. I am tagging the article appropriately. PreviouslyanIP (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Correct tag since article was created over a decade ago Shubhamgawali1 (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Recent changes to content

Shubhamgawali1 - please explain your edits. You added this - Jill Kelley hosted a diplomatic party for ambassadors at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., in November 2017. The event was held to introduce ambassadors to senior members of the Trump administration following Donald Trump's election victory. Here is the source being used. Please show me in that source where it verifies the content you added. Because what I see is - “exclusive reception for our victorious friends” ... the event is “in honor of the One Year Anniversary of the Election of President Donald Trump.” The source says absolutely nothing about a "diplomatic party for ambassadors" or "the event was held to introduce ambassadors to senior members of the Trump administration".

And you also added this - Subprime mortgage crisis - Here is the source being used. Again, please show me in that source where it mentions "Subprime mortgage crisis". What you have added to the article amounts to original research - you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that directly support the material being presented. And since the content you have added to a BLP is now being disputed, the WP:ONUS is on you to achieve consensus for the inclusion of the disputed content. And additionally, we don't refer to subjects of a BLP by their first name in the content, we use their surname. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I’m doing search but I made the that 2010 subprime mortgage crisis, when I checked her bankruptcy and tenant didn’t pay rent was during the same period. Also about donald trump I’ll be providing the sources as still working on the proper source I had read long time back. Let me find it thats why I didn’t change the sources until I add new/archived. Shubhamgawali1 (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The point is, you can not add and/or change content in the article when the existing sources being used in the article do not verify your changes. And the bankruptcy is in relation to the charity, and has nothing to do with a tenant not paying rent or the subprime mortgage crisis. And you can't add and/or change content based on what you "read long time back". Isaidnoway (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

This isn't exactly about what you're talking about but Isaidnoway I wonder if you could check my work on something. The subject of the article is very upset that this article says that her charity was bankrupt, despite it being in sources that we normally would regard as reliable. My understanding, having looked into it a bit, is that the charity spent down to zero and went defunct (that might not be the right terminology) for a few years, and is back now, but never actually filed for bankruptcy. It's a bit of original research but I have been unable to find any evidence of a bankruptcy in the corporate records, and so I wonder if we might find an alternative wording. I have recommended that she contact the original sources to ask for a correction, but that may take some time or never happen.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales - Writ Keeper changed the wording in this edit to The charity ran out of money and became defunct by the end of the year, which is supported by Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and Town & Country. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)