Talk:Maggie Williams
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Maggie Williams be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Untitled
editThere's an extensive biography about Williams here. --165.134.208.120 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
NPOV
editIt seems this article quickly became a huge load of WP:UNDUE weight given to scandals or insinuations of such. These aren't even placed into coherent encyclopedic context and seem to very easily violate WP:BLP. --Veritas (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree and I'm removing all of it. It's certainly undue weight and potential BLP problems - looks like people googled her name and found whatever they could of that nature and threw it into the article. I had tried to rework it more neutrally, but it was still out of whack. Tvoz |talk 18:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Whitewater investigations were a very significant part of the Clinton Administration and Maggie Williams name first gained notoriety in those Congressional hearings. I agree there were a few far fetched comments on here in the past, but the Whitewater hearings were a very significant part of her public life and I think it should be added under a section with it's own name. (Dbcraft (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC))
- I do not deny that the Whitewater investigation was important or that Williams played an important role in it. However, such a section would need to be balanced and extremely well-cited and cannot provide undue weight to the subject in relation to her overall notability. --Veritas (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Whitewater investigations were a very significant part of the Clinton Administration and Maggie Williams name first gained notoriety in those Congressional hearings. I agree there were a few far fetched comments on here in the past, but the Whitewater hearings were a very significant part of her public life and I think it should be added under a section with it's own name. (Dbcraft (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC))
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Maggie Williams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080213190253/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5gbXwiTaCV0pYMVmNbwvHk3ESG0agD8UNNUT80 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gbXwiTaCV0pYMVmNbwvHk3ESG0agD8UNNUT80
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080213190253/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5gbXwiTaCV0pYMVmNbwvHk3ESG0agD8UNNUT80 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gbXwiTaCV0pYMVmNbwvHk3ESG0agD8UNNUT80
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)