Talk:White House travel office controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White House travel office controversy article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] 2005 complaints

This article appears to have as its primary source a compilation of the issues from something called "Insight on the News". The top headline on "Insight on the News" today (2/15/05) is "The Party of Hate Picks a Chief". I think we should be able to agree that this is not a source that has fairness as a prime objective.

I suggest that either the article be edited to provide balance (other than the single sentence at the bottom of the page) and to provide content (it does not seem to even mention Robert Ray, his report, or its conclusions), or it should be removed, since it is, at best, a virtually one-sided, incomplete description of the issue. [20:33, 15 February 2005 Es3200]

good grief. after the 1st two paragraphs, this articles is just 3 or 4 full pages quoted from a congressional committee report about the investigation of the matter. that belongs in wikisource to be referenced. it's hardly an encyclopedia article. [04:40, 13 March 2005 68.108.243.20]

Very disappointing article. Unfortunately, many people like me who never quite got what the Travelgate "scandal" was actually about, other than harassing Bill Clinton for partisan reasons, will be seriously misled if they read no farther. [09:39, 31 October 2005 69.3.132.100]

People, do you see the edit button on the article? Good, then use it instead of complaining. Derex @ 17:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article name debate

  • 02:48, 29 January 2006 Derex (moved Travelgate to White House travel office controversy: npov)
  • 02:26, 9 December 2006 RWR8189 (moved White House travel office controversy to Travelgate: "White House travel office controversy" seems to be a name that exists almost exclusively on Wikipedia, it only get 82 hits on Google, and "travelgate" is much more common.)
  • 02:03, 18 December 2006 Derex (moved Travelgate to White House travel office controversy: standard npov naming convention)

[edit] BLP removal

I removed a reference to Billy Dale's plea bargain offer.[1] I know that the offer was leaked, and there certainly is reliable sourcing for it, but (1) settlement offers are normally confidential, and are supposed to be kept confidential by DOJ regulations; (2) Dale is at best a limited public figure; and (3) I think smearing someone with his plea bargains raises WP:BLP concerns. The independent counsel report does a good job of summarizing the evidence against Dale, and I would have no objection to that stuff, but settlement offers strike me as tabloidish and inappropriate. Thoughts? TheronJ 13:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi TheronJ. The article is clearly highly partisan in its editing. A tempest in a teapot, it admits employees of the department "serve at the president's pleasure" (i.e. the president does not need Senate confirmation to fire or hire, and then rages on for 4 paragraphs suggesting something here is "political", dark, wrong, etc. CApitol3 03:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typo

"Written in fall 1973..." I think this is a typo. Context implies this should be 1993 (during Clinton's term). [21:09, 1 July 2007 66.91.211.207]

Fixed. Wasted Time R 00:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article expanded and reworked

I've almost completely reworked and significantly expanded the article. There are still a few aspects I'd like to fill out better, but it's all pretty much there now. Hopefully it satisfies those who have found the article disappointing or imbalanced in the past. Wasted Time R 00:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few minor edits

I changed a few lines with obvious POV issues. Such as changing "Clinton-hating magazine" to "conservative". Unless the magazine describes itself as "clinton-hating" or it entire purpose of publishing is to spread hatred for this one individual. Also I deleted references on them doing this to increase revenue sales, it was without citation, and I can't imagine a reliable source that you can cite about their personal motives (unless it is them). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.49.120 (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I edited again the section about "clinton-hating" magazine. I know many people here have passionate view about this, but calling a conservative magazine "clinton-hating" is inappropriate. We need to keep a NPOV and cite sources. Urbansage (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There are conservative magazines and there are conservative magazines. I've now put in three WP:RS citations about The American Spectator in this era, and about the economic benefit of this and the other scandals of the time. Note that one of the cites, the American Journalism Review article, highlights twice the comparison between American Spectator and the more traditional National Review, the benchmark conservative magazine. That doesn't mean that everything American Spectator wrote was false; as the article says, "real and imagined" (and uses its writer David Brock later confessing to concocting some of the latter as one of its cites). But it did hate Clinton, as the words in these cites ("flaying", "screeds", "ultimate patron of the Clinton haters", etc.) indicates.
Let me ask you something: did you read American Spectator during this period (I did enough) and now disagree with this article's assessment of it? Or did you not read it, but simply think this description of it must be overbaked and non-neutral? This answer will better help me understand your objection. I'm not trying to edit war here, since this is a minor aspect in the overall trajectory of Travelgate. But to do this subject justice, we have to capture the flavor of the times, and the vitriol with which some of Clinton's opponents viewed him is an important part of the historical context. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)