Talk:Nora Dannehy
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | United States | ||||||
| |||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Nora Dannehy be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Untitled
[edit]"Post-Op Transexual and adult film star/ Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey" in the Nora Dannehy wiki page probably isn't accurate.--Droptopscot (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Investigation of the dismissals of nine federal prosecutors
[edit]editor Informant16 has chosen to revert my addition of the following material: "</ref> Her investigation concluded that "Evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias,", "The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias." and that "there was insufficient evidence to charge someone with lying to Congress or investigators." [1]"
In my mind, this material is self-evidently relevant, as she was tasked with an investigation and this is the outcome of that investigation. If you want to argue that the whole investigation is irrelevant to her, go ahead, but if we include a mention of her investigation it stands to reason that the whole investigation be included. As it stands now, you have effectively made the article read as if we dont know the outcome of something that happened 10 years ago. Bonewah (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's just too trivial. How does something from ten years ago that wasn't explicitly about her have to do with her biography? I feel as though you're just speculating its importance. Informant16 27 June 2016
References