Talk:Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

Skip to table of contents

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 365 days

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.

Bush family Low‑importance

	Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy is within the scope of WikiProject Bush family, a project dedicated to creating and improving content related to the Bush family. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bush familyWikipedia:WikiProject Bush familyTemplate:WikiProject Bush familyBush family articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).

U.S. Congress

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

A lot of this is pretty speculative[edit]

Just 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)[reply]

Extensive use of primary sources[edit]

WP: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)[reply]

Daniel Bogden[edit]

In 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)[reply]