Jump to content

Talk:White House FBI files controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleWhite House FBI files controversy has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 20, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Article name

[edit]

I've moved the article from White House personnel file controversy to White House FBI files controversy because these weren't the regular "human resources" type personnel files involved, but rather FBI background reports. "FBI files" is also the term that both the Congressional investigation and the Independent Counsel reports used for the matter. Wasted Time R 13:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did Craig Livingstone edit this article?

[edit]

This edit from June 1, 2007 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_House_FBI_files_controversy&diff=134978620&oldid=130442673 - by User:Craiglivingstone, claims to be "written by the subject" of Filegate. There's no way of knowing if it really is the Craig Livingstone, of course, but my gut feeling is that it may well be. At the time, this article was incomplete and both inaccurate and slanted in places. User:Craiglivingstone's changes included some clarifications that were useful and correct (the outdated Secret Service list being the genesis of the affair), some that need corraboration (the actual number of files was 647?), and some that are contradicted by other news sources (the lack of salacious material in the files). User:Craiglivingstone's changes also sought to pin charges that Livingstone was unqualified for OPS Director on "right-wing media and conservative talk radio," but in fact plenty of mainstream media sources as well as the Independent Counsel report came to the same conclusion.

In any case, these changes were (improperly) wholesale reverted by User:Telecineguy. In apparent frustration, User:Craiglivingstone then made this edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_House_FBI_files_controversy&diff=135156682&oldid=135029407 - to remove most of the article. This was also (properly) reverted by User:Telecineguy.

I have subsequently greatly expanded the article, and the parts of User:Craiglivingstone's edits that were useful and correct (from what I can tell) are now reflected in the article. Wasted Time R 15:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Livingstone has apparently edited this article again, with this edit – http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_House_FBI_files_controversy&diff=368248623&oldid=363491355 – from June 15, 2010. By the usual rules of WP:V and WP:RS and whatnot, his statements cannot stay in the article unaltered, but I have added a footnote about his post-Filegate Internet presence (which seems to have extended to several previous forums) and included in it links to his two main edits here. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing files

[edit]

The article omits crucial evidence, such as how many months the files were "missing", and where they were eventually "discovered" (in Hillary's bedroom).--dunnhaupt (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing this with a separate Whitewater controversy matter, the discovery of the missing Rose Law Firm billing records for Hillary. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:White House FBI files controversy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ~ Don4of4 [Talk] 23:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) This section has one issue:
    • I would like to see an element in the lead section of the article. After all, this is the first thing the reader see's.
    		 On hold On hold
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Excellent list of references. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    No issues here. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Much improved. Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass This article qualifies for WP:GA status! However, I would like to see an infobox in the future for "U.S. Political Conspiracies."

Discussion

[edit]

Thanks very much for the review. Regarding the "wall of text" and lack of images, I have now added five images to the article, which I think illustrate the different aspects of the matter. I've also blockquoted the central Independent Counsel conclusion to the matter. Regarding a "See also" section, it is not required and I do not see the need for one here; WP:ALSO says that "Indeed, a good article might not require a 'See also' section at all." However, if there specific links that you think should go in such a section, let me know and I can create one. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem is, I don't know what could be put in the lead section. Looking at the articles in Category:Political scandals in the United States, there does not seem to be any specific infobox for political scandals, and very few of those articles have an infobox of any kind. And there's no one particular image that can serve for this article as a whole ... there's no WP-usable image of Craig Livingstone and no available image of what an FBI background report looks like. To move any of the images that I did add to the article body up to the top would overweight that aspect. So I'm not sure what can be done here, until someone creates Template:Infobox political scandal. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on White House FBI files controversy. 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:

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) 13:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Livingstone BLP???

[edit]

This article is a redirect from Craig Livingstone. If it is a BLP, then higher standards of sourcing etc. apply. Can someone clear this up, please? --Pete (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not intended as a BLP. However the redirect seems appropriate to me per the WP:BIO1E guidelines. If you don't agree, however, you can bring it up for discussion at WP:RfD. As for the sourcing of this article, I believe it is fully at BLP-type levels already – the main sources are the New York Times and the Washington Post, with some other mainstream sources like CNN and Time magazine as well. And the article was reviewed and approved for GA status. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problems with WaPo etc. Those are good for BLPs. I'll fix some sources which aren't good. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyring: The reason that footnote was there was to give the reader a general pointer to the various Internet forums where it appears that Livingstone has tried to tell his side of the story. I thought out of fairness that was appropriate. But I couldn't give exact links within the footnote because Free Republic is blacklisted and there is a bot that prevents WP cites from referencing WP articles. However if you don't like this approach, I think you have to take out this text too: In later years Livingstone would continue to maintain on the internet that he had been qualified for the position, that the First Lady had signed off on hiring him, and that his character had been maligned by the general media. Because as it stands now this text has no footnote at all. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If there's no sourcing we can use, it's got to go, especially for a BLP. --Pete (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on White House FBI files controversy. 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:

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) 05:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_House_FBI_files_controversy&oldid=1240946891"