This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1996 United States campaign finance controversy is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 27, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
|
|
Why is it used? It's not relevant to the article. Mastgrr 12:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind. As you can see, I've changed the pic to one of Clinton with trie. Not that that'll stop the bitching...-- Jayzel 02:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed:
"WorldNetDaily" and "Crossfire" are not reliable sources. Because this deals with information dealing with a biography of a living person, and possible illegal activities, we need to have rock solid sources for this content. Per WP:BLP and WP:RS.- Andrew c 06:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following from the article:
During an interview with the FBI, Gore said he "drank a lot of iced tea" at the function and, as a result, had made several trips to the bathroom. It was during these bathroom breaks, he claimed, that he missed the illegal activity. [1] [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17413]
The reason I removed it was because it is not quite accurate. The iced-tea defense, while real, did not relate to the Temple fund raiser. It had to do with a meeting at the White House discussing "hard" and "soft" money contributions in November 1995. Therefore, while I have no problem with the info being included in the article, I do have a problem with it being included in the "Maria Hsia and the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple" section. Perhaps it should be added somewhere in the "Department of Justice investigation" section. Regards, -- Jayzel 18:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I have tagged this article, as we clearly have a dispute about POV. There is an odd attempt in not only this article, but a great many of the affiliated articles, to imply a connection between nuclear espionage and these campaign finance violations. There are dozens of examples, many of which I have removed. So, while a one-off allusion might be nothing to worry about, there is a consistent pattern of making the link. So far as I have seen, there is no documented connection between nuclear espionage and these campaign donations. It's not even clear what the exactly the implied connection is supposed to be; but that there is one is made clear by the overwhelming pattern of juxtaposition. The proximate cause for this tag is the repeated re-insertion of 1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy#Taiwan_and_nuclear_designs, with no attempt to explain what on earth nuclear espionage has to do with these campaign finance irregularities. So, I dispute the neutrality of this article on the general grounds that it purposely conflates two contemporaneous issues: campaign finance & nuclear espionage, that have no documented comprehensive connection besides they involve China. AllanBColson 18:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
As I agree there is no known direct connection between nuclear espionage and the illegal contributions, there is no NPOV dispute. - Jayzel Then there is no reason for that material in this article. Indeed, we do have a NPOV dispute, and this is the very basis of it. Why on earth would we devote such large territory in an article to something entirely unconnected? Any reasonable reader would infer that there is a connection. I respectfully request that you do not remove the tag until this very serious and extensive POV complaint is resolved.
I would also note that many of the people related to these events are living. Therefore, we must rise to the very high standards of WP:BLP. Suggestions of espionage, which carries the death penalty, would I believe have to rise to a very high level of encyclopedic rigor. AllanBColson 19:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Jayzel, I've clearly stated a legitimate POV dispute. I've asked you not to remove the tag until this is resolved. You have done so, regardless. If you remove the tag again, I will have no alternative but to seek administrative relief. I would prefer to avoid that, and I can't understand why you object so strongly to the notion that there is a serious disagreement here. Thank you. AllanBColson 20:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I would also ask you to be mindful of WP:3RR which applies to total reverts to an article, not necessarily to the same revert. You have already made 3 such reverts against well-justified edits. Another one could place you in peril of a preventive block. AllanBColson 20:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Jayzel, this was ungentlemanly, unfair, and untrue. However, I'm not one to hold a grudge. I suggest we work together in the spirit of improving the article. To this end, you call my POV complaint "circular". I don't understand what you mean by that. If you clarify, perhaps we can come to a common understanding to remove some of the innuendo in the article and maybe even make it worthy of the ill-placed Featured tag. AllanBColson 00:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Background
Taiwan and nuclear designs
In early 1995, President of the Republic of China Lee Teng-hui requested a visa to enter the United States to attend events associated with his graduate school reunion at Cornell University scheduled to be held in June 1995. By May of that year, Congress passed a resolution calling on President Clinton to grant a visa to President Lee. After the State Department granted Lee's visa, the PRC government immediately protested the decision and, working through traditional diplomatic channels, suspended ongoing treaty negotiations and recalled its ambassador to the United States. [5] The PRC government considers Taiwan a rogue province of the country. On May 15, 1995, China conducted the first in a series of underground nuclear tests. [6] Around the same time, PRC intelligence services had a walk-in agent approach the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) office in Taiwan. The "walk-in" provided an official PRC document classified "Secret" that contained information relating to a number of advanced U.S. nuclear warhead designs. [7] The People's Liberation Army (PLA) then began conducting a series of missile tests in the waters near Taiwan in July of that year.
Bernard Schwartz and Loral
Some of the trade missions to Asia were attended by Bernard Schwartz, then CEO of Loral Space and Communications (an American maker of satellites). Schwartz donated over $600,000 to the DNC and President Clinton's 1996 reelection effort, making Schwartz the largest cash donor to the DNC during the 1996 election cycle. [8] Schwartz said he "did not need, expect or receive any special treatment" from the Clinton administration in exchange for his donations. [9] Loral was later fined $14 million in 2002 for its involvement in illegally transferring missile technology to China. [10] The transfer of classified secrets occurred in February 1996 during an investigation into the failed launch and explosion of a Long March rocket that was to carry a Loral satellite into space.
In February 1998, Loral requested a waiver from President Clinton that would allow the shipment to China of a satellite when it was then under investigation for the illegal missile technology transfer to the PRC. The State Department supported the waiver, arguing that it would promote trade with China and enhance America's position as the world telecommunications leader. The Justice Department warned President Clinton in a memo that they believed that if the Loral investigation ever went to trial, "a jury likely would not convict" the company if it received another presidential waiver. Clinton eventually decided to sign the waiver. [11]
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Broughton ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
Let's have that discussion and settle this once and for all. I will leave this info here to wait for comment from people that come by for one month. If the issue is not resoved by then, I will then begin the dispute resolution process. I am willing to go all the way to the end (ARBCOM) if needed. No rush. I don't expect to die any time soon (knock on wood). -- Jayzel 04:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
Comments
What is the relevant context? You seem to think the relevant context involves the theft of nuclear secrets. Why is that? You answer because they both involve China. Well, there are quite a few things that involve China, and yet they don't get placed here. By placing that there, you create the perception of a specific connection, which even you admit does not exist. If you want stuff about nuclear espionage in here, the answer is simple. Go back and find the newspaper articles of the time which made the connection. Quote the connection they make. But to simply begin an article on some campaign finance violations with a random discussion of nuclear tensions in the Taiwan Strait, and nuclear espionage is absolutely ridiculous. It, quite intentionally from your history, creates the perception of one gigantic conspiracy theory with no basis in the documentation. Before you go there, if you want an article about the Cox report, you'll be pleased to know we already have one for you to edit. This is not an article about the Cox report, and it should not mimic a political document, though it may usefully cite it at points. Bottom line, if we're free to add whatever random stuff we personally think provides context, then anyone can go stuff the introduction full of Republican campaign violations, Iran Contra, whatever POV spin they feel like pushing as "context". A look through the history of the article and Talk makes it amply clear that's what happened here. AllanBColson 02:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It can't be both... 68.39.174.238 20:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Recently an editor has twice reverted numerous edits back to an old version, which he/she seems to prefer. While I haven't reviewed every edit in the interim, a great many of them seemed to me quite productive. For example there were some factual errors corrected and some plainly relevant facts added, which were removed without any justification offered. I would ask that, in the future, blanket reverts of a large number of edits be avoided. Wikipedia works best through dialogue and through building on each other's contributions. If you have problems with one or two edits, please simply improve those without reverting all edits that have been done in the interim. WP:OWN is worth reviewing here. The most recent edit was given the misleading summary of "reverse destruction of lead paragraph". While I actually thought the newer version was a great improvement, and written consistently with the guidelines in WP:LEAD, I can understand that others might prefer something closer to the old version. In that case, the answer is to edit and improve the lead paragraph, not to simply revert the whole article back to an ancient and error-ridden version. Thank you. AllanBColson ( talk) 05:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The content of this well written article seems to focus entirely on misdeeds of Clinton fund raisers with a Chinese connection. But the 1997 Senate report itemizes other Clinton fund raising scandals that year.
The minority report raises charges against
--
AndersW (
talk) 07:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This image is being targeted for deletion. I am not sure if the image uploader has been contacted, but it would appear that the article discussion has not. the IfD discussion is occurring here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 04:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 04:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 04:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 04:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 04:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 04:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 04:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
So I know this is an old news type article but I still can't help but be puzzled at the title. Is there a controversy over whether any of this happened? Where's the controversy? Is it over the straw man of whether or not the corruption which did occur was part of a plan for the Chinese to assert undue influence over our politics? What else would they be purchasing? I'm going to float this idea out for a few weeks for anyone watching the article and if no opposition, change it. Please comment as necessary. Batvette ( talk) 21:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I learnt of it as "Asia fundraising scandal" - should this at least be an alternative title, with redirect? 84.210.46.118 ( talk) 13:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I read that Shieh Chung-liang and Yuen-Ying Chan won the CPJ International Press Freedom Awards in 1997 for exposing a Kuomintang-in-Taiwan donation offer of $15 million towards Bill Clinton's 1996 presidential campaign. Yet the only campaign finance controversy I saw linked on that page was this; from the PRC, and not the ROC. Considering that the China Lobby in the United States for the Republic of China (Taiwan) was always extremely well-organized (and it still is, although after Taiwanization, it could be called the "Taiwan lobby") and able to influence major candidates like Ronald Reagan and to pass legislation like the Taiwan Relations Act. Was this Taiwan controversy related to the PRC one? I suspect that it may be, since the KMT and PRC are engaged in diplomatic-pecuniary competition all over the world, and not just the United States. Otherwise, should we rename this page to finance "controversies"? Shrigley ( talk) 06:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
This article has changed vastly since it attained Featured article status in 2006. I'm concerned that the article no longer meets the WP:Featured article criteria. To start, I see the following:
I will alter the Sioeng section so that it does not violate BLP. Are any of the article's editors willing to tackle the other issues, to bring the article up to current standards so we can avoid WP:Featured article review? Maralia ( talk) 07:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
1996 United States campaign finance controversy. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
1996 United States campaign finance controversy. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1996 United States campaign finance controversy. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 1996 United States campaign finance controversy. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1996 United States campaign finance controversy is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 27, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
|
|
Why is it used? It's not relevant to the article. Mastgrr 12:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind. As you can see, I've changed the pic to one of Clinton with trie. Not that that'll stop the bitching...-- Jayzel 02:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed:
"WorldNetDaily" and "Crossfire" are not reliable sources. Because this deals with information dealing with a biography of a living person, and possible illegal activities, we need to have rock solid sources for this content. Per WP:BLP and WP:RS.- Andrew c 06:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following from the article:
During an interview with the FBI, Gore said he "drank a lot of iced tea" at the function and, as a result, had made several trips to the bathroom. It was during these bathroom breaks, he claimed, that he missed the illegal activity. [1] [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17413]
The reason I removed it was because it is not quite accurate. The iced-tea defense, while real, did not relate to the Temple fund raiser. It had to do with a meeting at the White House discussing "hard" and "soft" money contributions in November 1995. Therefore, while I have no problem with the info being included in the article, I do have a problem with it being included in the "Maria Hsia and the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple" section. Perhaps it should be added somewhere in the "Department of Justice investigation" section. Regards, -- Jayzel 18:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I have tagged this article, as we clearly have a dispute about POV. There is an odd attempt in not only this article, but a great many of the affiliated articles, to imply a connection between nuclear espionage and these campaign finance violations. There are dozens of examples, many of which I have removed. So, while a one-off allusion might be nothing to worry about, there is a consistent pattern of making the link. So far as I have seen, there is no documented connection between nuclear espionage and these campaign donations. It's not even clear what the exactly the implied connection is supposed to be; but that there is one is made clear by the overwhelming pattern of juxtaposition. The proximate cause for this tag is the repeated re-insertion of 1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy#Taiwan_and_nuclear_designs, with no attempt to explain what on earth nuclear espionage has to do with these campaign finance irregularities. So, I dispute the neutrality of this article on the general grounds that it purposely conflates two contemporaneous issues: campaign finance & nuclear espionage, that have no documented comprehensive connection besides they involve China. AllanBColson 18:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
As I agree there is no known direct connection between nuclear espionage and the illegal contributions, there is no NPOV dispute. - Jayzel Then there is no reason for that material in this article. Indeed, we do have a NPOV dispute, and this is the very basis of it. Why on earth would we devote such large territory in an article to something entirely unconnected? Any reasonable reader would infer that there is a connection. I respectfully request that you do not remove the tag until this very serious and extensive POV complaint is resolved.
I would also note that many of the people related to these events are living. Therefore, we must rise to the very high standards of WP:BLP. Suggestions of espionage, which carries the death penalty, would I believe have to rise to a very high level of encyclopedic rigor. AllanBColson 19:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Jayzel, I've clearly stated a legitimate POV dispute. I've asked you not to remove the tag until this is resolved. You have done so, regardless. If you remove the tag again, I will have no alternative but to seek administrative relief. I would prefer to avoid that, and I can't understand why you object so strongly to the notion that there is a serious disagreement here. Thank you. AllanBColson 20:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I would also ask you to be mindful of WP:3RR which applies to total reverts to an article, not necessarily to the same revert. You have already made 3 such reverts against well-justified edits. Another one could place you in peril of a preventive block. AllanBColson 20:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Jayzel, this was ungentlemanly, unfair, and untrue. However, I'm not one to hold a grudge. I suggest we work together in the spirit of improving the article. To this end, you call my POV complaint "circular". I don't understand what you mean by that. If you clarify, perhaps we can come to a common understanding to remove some of the innuendo in the article and maybe even make it worthy of the ill-placed Featured tag. AllanBColson 00:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Background
Taiwan and nuclear designs
In early 1995, President of the Republic of China Lee Teng-hui requested a visa to enter the United States to attend events associated with his graduate school reunion at Cornell University scheduled to be held in June 1995. By May of that year, Congress passed a resolution calling on President Clinton to grant a visa to President Lee. After the State Department granted Lee's visa, the PRC government immediately protested the decision and, working through traditional diplomatic channels, suspended ongoing treaty negotiations and recalled its ambassador to the United States. [5] The PRC government considers Taiwan a rogue province of the country. On May 15, 1995, China conducted the first in a series of underground nuclear tests. [6] Around the same time, PRC intelligence services had a walk-in agent approach the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) office in Taiwan. The "walk-in" provided an official PRC document classified "Secret" that contained information relating to a number of advanced U.S. nuclear warhead designs. [7] The People's Liberation Army (PLA) then began conducting a series of missile tests in the waters near Taiwan in July of that year.
Bernard Schwartz and Loral
Some of the trade missions to Asia were attended by Bernard Schwartz, then CEO of Loral Space and Communications (an American maker of satellites). Schwartz donated over $600,000 to the DNC and President Clinton's 1996 reelection effort, making Schwartz the largest cash donor to the DNC during the 1996 election cycle. [8] Schwartz said he "did not need, expect or receive any special treatment" from the Clinton administration in exchange for his donations. [9] Loral was later fined $14 million in 2002 for its involvement in illegally transferring missile technology to China. [10] The transfer of classified secrets occurred in February 1996 during an investigation into the failed launch and explosion of a Long March rocket that was to carry a Loral satellite into space.
In February 1998, Loral requested a waiver from President Clinton that would allow the shipment to China of a satellite when it was then under investigation for the illegal missile technology transfer to the PRC. The State Department supported the waiver, arguing that it would promote trade with China and enhance America's position as the world telecommunications leader. The Justice Department warned President Clinton in a memo that they believed that if the Loral investigation ever went to trial, "a jury likely would not convict" the company if it received another presidential waiver. Clinton eventually decided to sign the waiver. [11]
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Broughton ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
Let's have that discussion and settle this once and for all. I will leave this info here to wait for comment from people that come by for one month. If the issue is not resoved by then, I will then begin the dispute resolution process. I am willing to go all the way to the end (ARBCOM) if needed. No rush. I don't expect to die any time soon (knock on wood). -- Jayzel 04:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
Comments
What is the relevant context? You seem to think the relevant context involves the theft of nuclear secrets. Why is that? You answer because they both involve China. Well, there are quite a few things that involve China, and yet they don't get placed here. By placing that there, you create the perception of a specific connection, which even you admit does not exist. If you want stuff about nuclear espionage in here, the answer is simple. Go back and find the newspaper articles of the time which made the connection. Quote the connection they make. But to simply begin an article on some campaign finance violations with a random discussion of nuclear tensions in the Taiwan Strait, and nuclear espionage is absolutely ridiculous. It, quite intentionally from your history, creates the perception of one gigantic conspiracy theory with no basis in the documentation. Before you go there, if you want an article about the Cox report, you'll be pleased to know we already have one for you to edit. This is not an article about the Cox report, and it should not mimic a political document, though it may usefully cite it at points. Bottom line, if we're free to add whatever random stuff we personally think provides context, then anyone can go stuff the introduction full of Republican campaign violations, Iran Contra, whatever POV spin they feel like pushing as "context". A look through the history of the article and Talk makes it amply clear that's what happened here. AllanBColson 02:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It can't be both... 68.39.174.238 20:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Recently an editor has twice reverted numerous edits back to an old version, which he/she seems to prefer. While I haven't reviewed every edit in the interim, a great many of them seemed to me quite productive. For example there were some factual errors corrected and some plainly relevant facts added, which were removed without any justification offered. I would ask that, in the future, blanket reverts of a large number of edits be avoided. Wikipedia works best through dialogue and through building on each other's contributions. If you have problems with one or two edits, please simply improve those without reverting all edits that have been done in the interim. WP:OWN is worth reviewing here. The most recent edit was given the misleading summary of "reverse destruction of lead paragraph". While I actually thought the newer version was a great improvement, and written consistently with the guidelines in WP:LEAD, I can understand that others might prefer something closer to the old version. In that case, the answer is to edit and improve the lead paragraph, not to simply revert the whole article back to an ancient and error-ridden version. Thank you. AllanBColson ( talk) 05:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The content of this well written article seems to focus entirely on misdeeds of Clinton fund raisers with a Chinese connection. But the 1997 Senate report itemizes other Clinton fund raising scandals that year.
The minority report raises charges against
--
AndersW (
talk) 07:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This image is being targeted for deletion. I am not sure if the image uploader has been contacted, but it would appear that the article discussion has not. the IfD discussion is occurring here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 04:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 04:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 04:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 04:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 04:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 04:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 04:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
So I know this is an old news type article but I still can't help but be puzzled at the title. Is there a controversy over whether any of this happened? Where's the controversy? Is it over the straw man of whether or not the corruption which did occur was part of a plan for the Chinese to assert undue influence over our politics? What else would they be purchasing? I'm going to float this idea out for a few weeks for anyone watching the article and if no opposition, change it. Please comment as necessary. Batvette ( talk) 21:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I learnt of it as "Asia fundraising scandal" - should this at least be an alternative title, with redirect? 84.210.46.118 ( talk) 13:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I read that Shieh Chung-liang and Yuen-Ying Chan won the CPJ International Press Freedom Awards in 1997 for exposing a Kuomintang-in-Taiwan donation offer of $15 million towards Bill Clinton's 1996 presidential campaign. Yet the only campaign finance controversy I saw linked on that page was this; from the PRC, and not the ROC. Considering that the China Lobby in the United States for the Republic of China (Taiwan) was always extremely well-organized (and it still is, although after Taiwanization, it could be called the "Taiwan lobby") and able to influence major candidates like Ronald Reagan and to pass legislation like the Taiwan Relations Act. Was this Taiwan controversy related to the PRC one? I suspect that it may be, since the KMT and PRC are engaged in diplomatic-pecuniary competition all over the world, and not just the United States. Otherwise, should we rename this page to finance "controversies"? Shrigley ( talk) 06:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
This article has changed vastly since it attained Featured article status in 2006. I'm concerned that the article no longer meets the WP:Featured article criteria. To start, I see the following:
I will alter the Sioeng section so that it does not violate BLP. Are any of the article's editors willing to tackle the other issues, to bring the article up to current standards so we can avoid WP:Featured article review? Maralia ( talk) 07:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
1996 United States campaign finance controversy. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
1996 United States campaign finance controversy. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1996 United States campaign finance controversy. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 1996 United States campaign finance controversy. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)