Jump to content

Talk:Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 25: Line 25:


How much weight should we put on speculation and supposition of motives in this article? [[User:Bonewah|Bonewah]] ([[User talk:Bonewah|talk]]) 17:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
How much weight should we put on speculation and supposition of motives in this article? [[User:Bonewah|Bonewah]] ([[User talk:Bonewah|talk]]) 17:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

== Extensive use of primary sources ==

[[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. [[User:Bonewah|Bonewah]] ([[User talk:Bonewah|talk]]) 18:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:37, 14 May 2024

A lot of this is pretty speculative

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

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]