Talk:Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys 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 |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A lot of this is pretty speculative
editJust looking over this article, a number of the claims about why US Attorneys were fired are pretty speculative. Paul K. Charlton for example, we say " He may have been fired because he had started a corruption investigation into Representative Rick Renzi" I cant view the WSJ article on this, but none of the other sources confirm this. In any event, how much emphasis should we put on what *May* be the case? Kevin Ryan, "he was allegedly fired for the possible controversy that negative job performance evaluations might cause if they were released". Carol Lam, no reason is given, but we imply it had something to do with her prosecution of Randy "Duke" Cunningham. There are more.
How much weight should we put on speculation and supposition of motives in this article? Bonewah (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Extensive use of primary sources
editWP:Primary is relevant here. "Specifically Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." and "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." We have a number of paragraphs that cite official documentation and testimony. While not specifically forbidden, we need to be on the look out for places where we interpret these sources ourselves or use them as the only citation for a claim. Bonewah (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Daniel Bogden
editIn this article we claim that "Daniel Bogden (R) U.S. Attorney for Nevada was investigating Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons (R) for bribery, when he was fired without explanation after seven years because of a vague sense that a "stronger leader" was needed. His loyalty to President Bush was questioned by Sampson"
None of the citations back up this claim. Im hesitant to remove the passage, however, as we will then have nothing to say about Bogden. Perhaps we should mimic what the Atlantic had to say, namely that no explanation was given. Bonewah (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)