Talk:Kathy Shelton

Disputed additions

@FactCheckkerr: and @Rjensen: You clearly disagree on the edits that FactCheckkerr is making. Please discuss here before continuing to edit war. agtx 23:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. So how does this work, I add comments here? So if it is a question of neutrality, it is indisputable that the judge advised his son to donate to Bill Clinton 7 months before the trial. Nowadays that would be a conflict of interest. So on the one hand, you have Hillary saying she took the case on as a favor to the prosecutor, and thus took the case voluntarily, and then you have her recent statement that she was a "court appointed attorney". But that leaves out how the judge was a Democrat that supported her soon-to-be husband, and we can make the inference, from these facts, that Hillary's appointment was not so involuntary. But stating the facts as I've put them, that the judge donated to the Clinton's, is perfectly neutral. You have a lot of point of view out there saying the entire system was rigged, that the Democrat judge, prosecutor and even judge's son were in cahoots with each. But here I am only putting forward the facts in as neutral way as I can. FactCheckkerr (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have a problem with the part about the judge's relationship to the Clinton campaign (not sure if others do), since that's from a reliable source and could be relevant. The problem with portions of the edits that rely on the primary source documents from Scribd, like this is that it relies on your interpretation of primary sources. Basically, it looks like you're putting together information you've found from primary sources and adding it to the article. Wikipedia articles cite to secondary sources, not primary sources. Also, the tone of the source for this edit (which is this article) makes me think that it may not be a reliable source, although I'm not sure what the prevailing view on the reliability of that particular website is. agtx 23:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The article is about Kathy Shelton, not the Clintons or the judge. The notion of a "conflict on interest" is OR based on an interpretation of primary sources. FactCheckkerr makes the assumption is that the public defender has a conflict of interest because the judge said something to his son about Clinton's husband in a totally unrelated political matter. FactCheckkerr assumes that judges in Arkansas are not allowed to comment to their family on state politicians who are not involved in any of the judge's cases. I suggest that FactCheckkerr may have added his interpretation to affect the 2016 presidential election. Rjensen (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The Article is already full of lies and manipulation of truth. As for the question of interpreting whether or not it is appropriate for a judge to also be a political donor to the defense attorney, there is are articles here describing that situation:

1. Hillary Clinton Learned How To Manipulate The Law By Defending A Child Rapist https://thefederalist.com/2016/11/01/hillary-clinton-learned-manipulate-law-defending-child-rapist/ 2. Hillary's rapist client never served a day of his sentence http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/hillarys_rapist_client_never_served_a_day_of_his_sentence.html 3. The Tragic Life of Kathy Shelton http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/11/the_tragic_life_of_kathy_shelton.html 4. The TRUTH About Hillary and Kathy Shelton https://pjmedia.com/blog/the-truth-about-hillary-and-kathy-shelton/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactCheckkerrr (talk • contribs) 17:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Can't Wikipedia get a copy-editor or something?

You have a new section or sub-section titled "Leaked audio recording" and then right at the start of that, you have "In the audio Clinton is heard laughing ...". In "THE" audio? WHAT audio? You don't describe or introduce whatever audio you're talking about. You don't give any background on it. It just appears from out of left field. How about "In [some month, some year] it was discovered that a tape existed of Hillary [doing something]. On that tape one can hear Hillary's comments about her defense of a rapist in Washington County in [etc.] and they are as follows" and THEN you start discussing what she said. Gosh people, read your own articles! You don't see how this reference to "the" audio without first telling us what "the" audio is, is just bad writing?2604:2000:C682:2D00:10F0:9D0:A56:2B31 (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

What Was "Lost"?

What "critical piece(s) of evidence" were "lost" by the prosecution, and what made this evidence so "critical"? They didnt lose the victim's testimony of the crime.72.181.112.54 (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)