# Talk:White House FBI files controversy

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/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  User:Craiglivingstone's changes included some clarifications that were useful and correct (the outdated Secret Service list being the genesis of the affair), some that need corraboration (the actual number of files was 647?), and some that are contradicted by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)
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)

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)

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)

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)


### Criteria
### Review
Well-written:

Verifiable with no original research:

Broad in its coverage:

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:


#### Result
#### Discussion
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)

It looks MUCH better.  My only concern is the lead section.  Tell me what you think.  Don4of4 [Talk] 18:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
Hmm... Ok, I put a placeholder where an infobox should ideally go and I'll look into adding it at a later time.  Thanks for you great work! Don4of4 [Talk] 23:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


### Additional Notes
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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100529015957/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/28/clinton.filegate/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/28/clinton.filegate/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.judicialwatch.org/alexander.shtml
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.judicialwatch.org/emailsearch.shtml
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)

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)

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)
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)
@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)
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)

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:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/icreport/marceca/sec1-2.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070521023750/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/govreform/index.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/govreform/index.html
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)