| Revision as of 07:10, 6 February 2006 editDerex (talk | contribs)5,818 edits copyright vio← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:00, 6 February 2006 edit undoJayzel68 (talk | contribs)3,506 edits →copyright vioNext edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| An extremely lengthy copyright violation was posted. I have removed it. For reference, is the source. It was, at any rate, wholly unencyclopedic. ] 07:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | An extremely lengthy copyright violation was posted. I have removed it. For reference, is the source. It was, at any rate, wholly unencyclopedic. ] 07:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| The site you reference is in violation of copyright laws. I wrote the timeline myself almost six years ago. For reference see: And what is your definition of "encyclopedic? I gave exact dates for reference. I would have given links to news sites, but, unfortunately, most sites constantly move news article to different addresses all the time. | |||
Revision as of 18:00, 6 February 2006
The third and fifth paragraphs of this article read like a "talking-points" style defense of the Clinton administration. The statement "It has been characterized as the most partisan, unfair, and abusive investigation since the McCarthy hearings" is a highly biased point-of-view, and the claim that it "was also the most expensive congressional investigation in history" is not supported by any reference or a statement of how much the investigation actually cost. The quotes from newspaper editorials are examples of opinion, not fact.
The fourth paragraph is biased *against* the Clinton administration and references a right-wing web site of disputed reliability.
added new information
I added enough information that the references to those paragraphs by number is no longer valid. They are still there but placed in less prominent positions.
Chinagate has come to mean one of several if not multiple incidents to different audiences. The Cox report fits in as a key piece but it alone is not what chinagate was about.
The political leanings of the cox investigation and the current 'revealing' of similar incidents during the Reagan/Bush administrations is making political biases a new topic of conversation. Therefore a section called "Political Biases" covers this view/angle as it relates to the name chinagate.
npov
what specific allegations of pov violations are made? without discussion of the topic, there is no way to fix it. Derex 03:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
wen ho lee?
what the hell? i've _never_ heard of that with regard to the phrase "chinagate". there are vast numbers of google hits for wen ho lee and chinagate separately. a miniscule percentage of those are hits for them together. and most of those do so coincidentally. it's simply not correct that wen ho lee is any part of what is popularly known as chinagate, other than that he's chinese.
that's a problem with this article title, it's a neologism. the title ought to be something descriptive about controversial Chinese political contributions. Derex 03:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- does someone want to defend the inclusion here? stashing lee under chinagate is, as best i can tell, purely a wikipedia invention. am i wrong? is there a sourceable basis for this? Derex 23:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
npov check removed
I edited a few phrases to distinguish facts from opinion. I've removed the POV check banner. Whoever added the Wen Ho Lee material will have to resolve that with Derex. --Eseymour 23:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
article content
I have reworked the article to be more neutral, more concise, and focus on the original meaning of the phrase: a campaign finance scandal. The material about Wen Ho Lee and the espionage issues already has dedicated articles ... Wen Ho Lee and Cox report respectively. The Buddhist temple aside (not directly related) is covered as the first issue in the Al Gore controversies page. So, I'm not trying to "censor" anything, just get some sort of logical organization to the various components. There was quite a bit of material about those two issues here, and I tried to verify it was already present in those two articles. However, there I may have missed something, because of the large amount. If so, I apologize, it's not my intent to remove any factual information. Derex 18:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
copyright vio
An extremely lengthy copyright violation was posted. I have removed it. For reference, here is the source. It was, at any rate, wholly unencyclopedic. Derex 07:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The site you reference is in violation of copyright laws. I wrote the timeline myself almost six years ago. For reference see: And what is your definition of "encyclopedic? I gave exact dates for reference. I would have given links to news sites, but, unfortunately, most sites constantly move news article to different addresses all the time.