Talk:White House FBI files controversy

message: 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)
thread_title: Article name

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  User:Craiglivingstone's changes included some clarifications that were useful and correct (the outdated Secret Service list being the genesis of the affair), some that need corraboration (the actual number of files was 647?), and some that are contradicted by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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Missing files

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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:   Because as it stands now this text has no footnote at all.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Craig Livingstone BLP??? 

message: 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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified