Talk:Linda Thompson (attorney)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

[edit] Lots of inaccurate information

This page is riddled with wrong information. Linda did not "quit her job as an attorney" in 1993. She continued to practice law in Indiana until 1997. She founded The Motherboard BBS in 1987, and AEN News in 1993. She had nothing to do with "The Clinton Chronicles." Michael McNulty never received the complete video of the Waco assault, nor did he view the footage (at Sander's Studio in Indianapolis).

America Under Siege was the fourth video Linda made (Waco: The Big Lie, Waco the Big Lie II, Forgive us We Didn't Know, America Under Siege).--Legomancer 14:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well... you should change it if you have the cites. I recall some of what you mention, but I don't have cites to back up memory, unfortunately. Student Driver 18:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to proceed. I'm very close friends with the family. I can see 2 obvious problems with my claim: 1) you have no way to verify what I say 2) Most of my knowledge is first hand experience which might be considered original research and I can only verify via personal journals on the individuals involved. I'm not sure either could be realistically cited here. I'm frustrated because I know what I'm saying is right, but I can't offer adequate proof. What would you suggest I do?--Legomancer 07:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, personal knowledge/research is unfortunately verboten. Some of this might be verified by outside sources-- if there's an article around regarding her law practice post-1997, even if it's a local paper or something, that could be cited. As far as "The Clinton Chronicles," I've never seen it, but if the video has any sort of credits, then her not being mentioned in them would back up the fact that she had nothing to do with it. If you're close friends with the family, perhaps you could ask if they might be able to point you to citable stuff (interviews and publications). Student Driver (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is largely uncited. The Washington Post piece "The Spooky World of Linda Thompson" is an op/ed piece, and the Snopes article makes some of the same unverified claims as the Wiki article. None of the Snopes references specify where this information came from. Can it be removed pending a better ability to validate?--Legomancer (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the information on Snopes was probably taken from two UK newspapers-- The Guardian and the (London) Times. (At least, I assume, as the rest of the citations seem to examine the individuals who died.) I haven't followed the articles back to their source; the Guardian offers digital archives online, but charges for article access, and the Times has online archives only up to 1985. A large physical library with a significant periodicals collection (IUPUI? Central Library?) might have the articles in microfilm or paper. If the articles cited indeed state the things claimed about Thompson, it would probably take an objective source with contradictory information to nullify the claims.

The Washington Post piece is, again, only previewable online, but should be readily available at a library. I do note, though, that being op/ed doesn't preclude it from stating things which can be construed as fact; presumably, only inferences drawn and conclusions thereof are demonstrably opinion.

As an aside, I noticed that the article only states that Linda Thompson "supported" The Clinton Chronicles, not that she necessarily had anything to do with it.

From here, I'm not sure what the minutiae are of Wikipedia procedures; despite citations, individual claims aren't necessarily cited. I'm loathe to just delete things wholesale, but there are boilerplate warnings often placed in articles like this that state that many claims made are uncited or unsupported; you could look into adding one of them. There are also those "citation needed" supersripts people add to individual statements in articles. Student Driver (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we put a neutrality warning on this page? At the very least, remove the information which the cites don't support, or flag it as undue weight? The current information is half-assed at best and blatent lies at worst.--Legomancer (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)