This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
White House FBI files controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | White 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. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
This edit from June 1, 2007 - http://en.wikipedia.org/?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 User:Craiglivingstone's changes included some clarifications that were useful and correct (the outdated Secret Service list being the genesis of the affair), some that need corraboration (the actual number of files was 647?), and some that are contradicted by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/?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)
Livingstone has apparently edited this article again, with this edit – http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: ~ Don4of4 [Talk] 23:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
A good article is—
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (major aspects) | The reviewer has no notes here. |
![]() |
(b) (focused) | The reviewer has no notes here. |
![]() |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
The reviewer has no notes here. |
![]() |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
No issues here. |
![]() |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | The reviewer has no notes here. |
![]() |
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | Much improved. |
![]() |
Result | Notes |
---|---|
![]() |
This article qualifies for WP:GA status! However, I would like to see an infobox in the future for "U.S. Political Conspiracies." |
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/icreport/marceca/sec1-2.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)