Talk:Keating Five

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Keating Five has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 5, 2008 Articles for deletion Kept
January 3, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article


Initial comments[edit]

The article formerly said the senators were given $1.3M to their campaigns, whereas the source cited in the article on Charles Keating said they got $300K. I am taking the amount out of this article until a source is cited. Ellsworth 20:44, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

the $300k number appears to be correct, and i've cited a source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.94.219 (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I just read this article. 11/17/05. Two things: i missed the part about keating doing time. He was convicted. The reason , or one of the reasons, Lincoln Savings went down, resulted from Keating transferring funds to an anti-porno organisation which he created, headed, or supported. I hope someone out there can provide the documentation on this. i am tired. wsegen@hotmail.com thanks. 66.81.72.235 19:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)will segen

Ummmmmm, what the hell is a fhlbb? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skintigh (talkcontribs) 21:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

inclusion of McCain and Glenn[edit]

I am not sure why part of the paragraph keeps getting cut-down. Rkevins82 20:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

secondary sources[edit]

Looking for secondary sources, I see all these books.[1] SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

McCain emphasis in first paragraph[edit]

Is it appropriate that McCain's name be followed "(the Republican nominee for the 2008 U.S. presidential election)" in this article. While the statement is true it can be found on McCain's own page and doesn't seem relevant to this event, which happened many years prior to the nomination. While this event may be relevant to his nomination, his nomination is not relevant to this event. This sort of descriptor might be necessary if there were some sort of ambiguity: ie there were several senators named John McCain.

Beyond that, the rest of the names are listed in alphabetical order, similar to the ordering of the photos, except for McCain's name which appears first. The only objective argument I can think for this ordering is that there is a value in grouping members of the same party together. If that is the reason it seems to make more sense to list the majority party first. However, alphabetical seems like the better approach. If no-one has a response to this in a few days I'll implement the changes myself. Shnoble (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

To add to that, the Corruption allegations section is extremely lopsided basically only talking about McCain when they found his involvement to be minimal. An entire paragraph is dedicated to McCain while a single paragraph encompasses all five. That doesn't seem right. I too agree that the whole argument (found under Aftermath of New York Times trying to bury McCain is also irrelevant. This article either needs details on the others involved beefed up or the emphasis on McCain needs to be cut down. FordGT90Concept (talk) 08:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This article still has bad weighting problems. Material about the other four really needs to be added, so that it isn't skewed towards being primarily about McCain. (I know, {{sofixit}}, but this one ain't my bag ...) Wasted Time R (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

All of the info in the article seems like it would belong in an ultimate version of the article. There doesn't seem to be disagreement about that. The disagreement seems to be that there's not enough info yet about the other participants.
I'm not sure what the appropriate path is in a situation like this. Just because McCain is mentioned a lot here does not mean that this article is giving the wrong impression that he was the main culprit. Quite the contrary, this article repeatedly emphasizes that McCain was pretty much cleared. So, if this article is clear on that point, then what's the problem with leaving the article as-is until someone adds more material about the other four Senators? Is it really necessary to now chop stuff about McCain, even though it will be reinserted later?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, I hope no one will throw up if I mention that the Wikipedia article about the movie Endless Love (film) includes this: "Endless Love was the feature film debut for a number of actors, including Tom Cruise, Jami Gertz and Jeff Marcus, and features very early appearances by James Spader, as the elder brother of Brooke Shields, and of a pre-Beverly Hills 90210 Ian Ziering." Obviously, those folks would not have been mentioned but for their future stardom. Similar with McCain here? Keating Five was a debut of sorts for McCain.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I tried to clean up and balance out the material in this article. It's not an area that I'm especially knowledgeable about, or interested in, but hopefully that's not obvious from reading the revised article.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You need multiple sources, not just one, to sustain blanket statements like "Senators McCain and Glenn were not central figures in the controversy, which could more aptly be called the 'Keating Three'" and "McCain was included in the investigation primarily so that there would be at least one Republican target, and Glenn was swept into the investigation by Republicans angered by the inclusion of McCain." Somehow I think there are other views than Tolchin's out there. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

We've already got two sources for the fact that "McCain was included in the investigation primarily so that there would be at least one Republican target." The other source is Bennett. As far as Glenn, I'll see if I can find some more stuff. Not that I have time to.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I've inserted some more footnotes and refs.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Saying this is also known as the "Keating Three" is a unsupportable stretch. A couple of writers may have called it that, but "Keating Five" gets 121,000 google hits, and "Keating Three" gets 500, the vast majority of which are false positives ('Jack brought Jill Keating three apples', that sort of thing). In no real sense was it called the "Keating Three". Whether McCain and Glenn did or did not get a raw deal by being roped in with the other three is a separate issue from what the affair was called. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I thought it was a clever moniker, but you're right, so I removed it. The term is still used in the article, but in an appropriate way (within a quote).Ferrylodge (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for inclusion of McCain and Glenn[edit]

This edit removed quite a bit of material, on the ground that it's merely "opinion". I've reinserted it, and prefaced it by saying that several accounts of the controversy assert thus-and-such. I think these are the prevailing explanations for why McCain was investigated, and other explanations can be presented too.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Information showing that McCain had an extensive past with Keating should be valid here. An extensive involvement where McCain (a senator) vacationed with Keating in addition to other meetings does give at a minimum a reasonable doubt that there was a real reason for his inclusion in the investigation. Sources showing that he received benefits from Keating must be included here if the previous statements are. Editorials from known conservative talk show hosts (Hannity and Combs) have a clear bias and should not be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.34.162 (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hannity and Colmes is not a conservative talk show, it is a split-view talk show a la Crossfire. Hannity is the conservative, Colmes is the liberal. They split introductions, comments, questions, etc. Thus, no "clear bias" as O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh would clearly have. However, editorials of any sort probably have no place in this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.100.227.72 (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If you honestly believe that Hannity and Colmes has "no clear bias", I have a bridge to sell you in Alaska. [06:41, September 26, 2008 98.27.85.251]
This was a red herring. H & C was being cited just to give Bob Bennett's viewpoint from the book he was promoting in the interview. I've changed the cite to be a direct cite to the relevant pages of Bennett's book instead. H & C are gone. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In the current political environment stating that Glen was included only as a result of McCain does not even the score politically. This feels very much like a quid pro quo attempt to seem unbiased that is meaningless since Glen has no political importance today and McCain is the most important Republican figure in the current elections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.34.162 (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the current political environment should not significantly impact what this Wikipedia article says. The events described in this article happened long ago, and the facts do not change due to events in 2008.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain reelection in '92[edit]

I'm going to make a slight change, so maybe it's not necessary to include this note at the talk page. The article says in the last section that McCain "had an unexpectedly easy time gaining re-election in 1992." This raises the question: unexpected by whom, and why? Unexpected by us, given the lousy things he did during the Keating affair? The answers are provided by the cited source: "some thought McCain was in trouble and not just because of Keating." Bush was dropping in the national polls against Clinton, and Mecham was drawing votes from McCain, and there was the Keating matter. Moreover, the reason why McCain had such an easy time getting reelected included that the Persian Gulf War broke out, which had nothing to do with Keating (McCain was in demand on talk shows to gab about the war). The cited source also says: "The tough re-election fight McCain dreaded never panned out. 'The pictures of me cavorting on a Bahamian beach with Charlie that I had anticipated seeing in Arizona newspapers never made an appearance in the campaign....'" Anyway, I'll change it to McCain "had an easier time gaining re-election in 1992 than he anticipated."Ferrylodge (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Need to better describe what actually happened[edit]

This article is lacking in details of what actually happened between Keating and the senators, and what actually they were under later ethical investigation for. The "Corruption allegations" just has one sentence (the first) pertinent to this. Then later in the "Peripheral role of Glenn and McCain" section, we have one paragraph (the third) on this, but it unfortunately mixes what all five did (material that's thus in the wrong section) with explanations of why two of them didn't do as much. Much more is needed, and it needs to be in the "Corruption allegations" section. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I just don't have time right now. Maybe later. Fell free to take a crack at it. The info you refer to is probably in the cited refs.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't saying you or anyone in particular has to do it, just leaving guidance for the next ambitious editor that comes along. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I did some work towards this. Mostly, I just shuffled material around, so that I got all relevant material in "Corruption allegations". I also added some bits about the two famous April 1987 meetings, but much more needs to be done. I also reorg'd the "Conclusion of investigation" section, as I thought it would be fairest if each senator's 'verdict' were given in a different subsection, as all were somewhat different. Obviously some of those subsections need expansion. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Mostly no objection to changes. However, I do think that the Senators ought to be grouped rather than all listed separately. Cranston should be one subsection. DeConcini and Riegle should be another subsection. Glenn and McCain should be another subsection. This reflects the Committee's treatment.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(Just as a follow-up, I did a lot of expansion of many parts of the article, subsequent to this.) Wasted Time R (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate article commentary added to article[edit]

User:72.223.34.162 added this, in reference to the 'McCain and Glenn were peripheral figures' section:

While these sources give valuable commentary they are editorials so they should be evaluated as such. Some would argue that they are not relevant sources at all. Due to the lack of independent consensus on the reasons for the inclusion of McCain and Glen they do not prove that the only reason they were included was for political reasons. Given McCain's extended involvement with Keating both professionally and personally it is hard to argue that the only reason that McCain was investigated was due to the fact that he was a Republican.

This is possible valid argument, but belongs in here in discussions about the article, not in the article itself. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that show a lack of consensus about why McCain and Glenn were included in the investigation, then they can be cited in this Wikipedia article.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Redundant material[edit]

Why is it necessary to include material twice? I've tried to remove the redundancy, but keep getting reverted.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Full text of Senate Ethics Committee report?[edit]

Has anyone ever found the full text of the Senate Ethics Committee report online anywhere? So far, all we have are these minimal excerpts via NYT. Straight Google doesn't find the full report using any expressions within the excerpt, e.g. this search. The Ethics Committee website doesn't go back before 2001. The GPO Access site doesn't go back before 1995. It would have to be tucked away in some other database ... or maybe it was never put online at all, and is only available in print at libraries that carry the congressional documents service. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The GPO does have some ancient stuff online, e.g. SCOTUS hearings, but apparently not the Keating Five Report: Senate Select Committee on Ethics, Investigation of Senator Alan Cranston together with Additional Views, Report of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, S. Rep. No. 223, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. 36 (November 20, 1991). The Library of Congress has tons of stuff online from 1774-1875 but not for later years. There may be some online source available for this (e.g. Questia), but I'm not aware of it.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Some of the Senate Ethics Committee's hearings, Preliminary inquiry into allegations regarding Senators Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, McCain, and Riegle, and Lincoln Savings and Loan: open session hearings before the Select Committee on Ethics, United States Senate, One Hundred First Congress, second session, November 15, 1990, through January ..., are now showing up in Google Books, e.g. this, but only in the usually useless snippet view. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Robert S. Bennett's Political Leanings[edit]

Is there any evidence that he is in fact a Democrat? [10:59, September 16, 2008 67.189.82.47]

Good question. In this Oct 1992 NYT profile, it says "Mr. Bennett describes himself as resolutely nonpolitical". In this February 2008 interview, Bennett says he's a registered Democrat. But the first reference is at the time of the Keating Five. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I subsequently removed the id of Bennett as a Democrat. See also page 130 of his 2008 memoir In the Ring, where goes on at length about how he's represented many people of both parties and has trusted relationships and friendships with people of both parties. "While I have handled many matters involving politics, I have never allowed politics to interfere with my work." Wasted Time R (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably going to want to lock this page[edit]

With the recent headlines, this thing will be a political hotspot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.222.150 (talk) 06:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's now semi-protected for a few days, until this flurry dies back down. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It was getting a bit nuts. —72.230.39.162 (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Good luck! With Obama's new political site bashing McCain for involvement in "Keating Five", I predict this page will need to remain locked until Nov 5th. Smilindog2000 (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

New relevance to 2008 Presidential Campaign[edit]

On October 6, 2008 the campaign of Barack Obama released a documentary attempting to tie John McCain's role in the Keating Five scandal to the current subprime mortgage crisis. This is a major development with respect to this article because it ties together two major current events (namely the 2008 political campaign and the 2008 financial crisis). Evidence of the relevance to the current campaign is demonstrated by the number of edits to this article in 2008 (nearly 500) compared to previous years (average of 10 per year). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surgderm (talkcontribs) 06:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I can see the Obama move has rapidly increased the churn on this article, but unless it introduces some new facts to this 20-year-old matter, it makes no difference here. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Poor English[edit]

Poor English [07:09, October 6, 2008 Ret.Prof]

Some specifics would help. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Article of the Day[edit]

What would be needed to get this to article of the day status? --Plkrtn (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It has to be a WP:FA for that. It's not even a WP:GA, although it's getting close to being a contender. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations not viewable over the Internet[edit]

Source citations that are not viewable over the internet should be avoided. I'm not a moderator this is just my personal opinion since this is likely going to be an important issue.--74.46.223.68 (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Not true, and a common false belief. WP:RS and WP:V give the highest value to scholarly articles and books, both of which are usually not readily available over the Internet. It gives the next highest value to mainstream newspaper articles, which for an event that happened two decades ago, often means accessing for-pay newspaper archives. For this article, sources freely available now in 2008 are often liable to be the least useful, because they look at the Keating Five through the prism of McCain's presidential campaign and/or the current financial crisis, neither of which have anything to do with what happened then. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Grossly and Unfairly Misleading Amounting to Fraud[edit]

These allegations in regard to the S&L scandal of early 1990's are entirely fraudulent and grossly and unfairly misleading in this fashion. If you understand, at all, accounting then you understand that Many / Most ? S&Ls declared bankrupt by the US Government at this time were NOT AT ALL. The mark to market rule required writing down their assets, and that marking down was caused most particularly by high interest rates caused by the US Federal Reserve Bank. This dual US Government role in causing such a write down which then afterwards would result in the S&L being declared as insolvment, is in actual fact then an accounting result having ZERO fraud at all involved by the S&L banks, officers, executives. Indead, instead, it could be ACCURATELY declared, entirely, a fraud by the S&L regulators. Entirely then,contrived.

Worse, the fact that such S&Ls declared then insolvent, when they were not, were then sold to cronies at massively undervalued values, amounted in effect to gifts of billions to those cronies. And all this being based on supposedly mortgages marked to market and so marked down in value, when in fact the mortgages were all good and paid off on time.

The same mark to market rule has presently (2008) caused widespread havoc across US Wall Street and banks again; and note the SEC has stated and proposed changing that rule to have its effect muted entirely with a "clarification" of that rule to allow judgment to not mark down to market such assets as those that are paying on time , etc.

Then, all that shows clearly , in addition to the finding at the time, that Sen McCain, was only minimally and innocently involved, it all shows clearly that the Obama campaign is using this theme entirely fraudulently to smear McCain, unfairly and in fact, fraudulently.

/s/ Tyroan Obinga Jr 76.192.7.118 (talk) 07:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What sources do you have for your statements? This Wall Street Journal article from a few days ago says the opposite of what you claim. It says that mark-to-market accounting was adopted after the savings and loan collapses of the 1980s, as a corrective because inflated asset values were part of what caused the S&L debacle. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Dayton Daily News first to report in detail[edit]

The Dayton Daily News was the first newspaper to report in detail on both the April 2 and April 7 meetings with a front page Sunday article on May 21, 1989. The story, written by John Dougherty, was later cited by Ed Gray in his Nov. 27, 1990 testimony before the Senate Ethics Committee (page 126 of the committee transcript). "Are you telling us if this reporter had not happened to call you, that this letter would not have been sent out and maybe we would not be here," Senate Ethics Committee special counsel Robert S. Bennett asked Gray. "That is probably right, unless some other reporter had called later and asked the same question and decided to write the story. Absolutely." /s/ RastaBear —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastabear (talkcontribs) 04:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much. This was a piece of the article that had lacked citation and I had recently taken out; I have now restored it, with this and another source I was able to find once I knew what to look for. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama not talking about[edit]

THERE ARE OTHER FACTS THAT THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN WOULD RATHER NOT TALK ABOUT REGARDING THE KEATING FIVE.
1, SENATOR McCAIN WAS EXONERATED IN THIS MATTER.
2, THE OTHER 4 MEMBERS OF THE KEATING FIVE WERE DEMOCRATS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.107.219 (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note that:

  1. McCain was not exactly exonerated. As our article says, he was cleared of having acted improperly but was criticized for having exercised poor judgment.
  2. Yes, our article makes clear the other four were Democrats, and spends lots of time on them. This is not a McCain-centric article.
  3. What the Obama campaign says is irrelevant to our article. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Keating Five. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Keating Five/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

* Given the current economic crisis related to deregulation of financial institutions, I have upgraded the article to "high". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 21:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Keating Five. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keating Five. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)