This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I can find no notable sources that called this scandal Wampumgate, including in any of the references linked from this article. How should this article be renamed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlahorn ( talk • contribs) 17:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:External links. Do not revert again. Thank you. Ward3001 14:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a short page, it is not honest to say "no Cited sources", when it has 7 news links for ref. for the info on the page. As you wish for now. Telecine Guy 03:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
If you do not like it try reading the links and them hit the edit button and fix it. Telecine Guy 15:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
You wrote : "It was believed that Bill Clinton's Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt responded to lobbying by the rival Ho-Chunk, Mdewankaton Sioux and six other tribes, mostly from neighboring Minnesota, who felt the Hudson casino would interfere with their own highly lucrative gambling operations."
First of all, "it was believed" should really not be used when creating a Wikipedia page. It most likely was also "believed" by some that he did nothing improper. Reading this sentence, and the whole artice for that matter, helps lend to the idea that although Babbitt was not convicted of anything, there are still many reasons to condemn him. This may all be true, but it does not belong in a wiki article.
I'm certainly not looking to get into a discussion with you on Babbitt's ethics or anything like that, I have no opinion on it and certainly don't know enough to disagree with you. I'm trying to have an open discussion and point out that this article is very one-sided. Suggesting that I should go through the articles (that you picked out) to present a more neutral POV shouldn't be the basis point. That is either sarcasm, suggesting that I won't/can't find any info to the contrary, or an admittance that the article is one-sided.
Do you think this article has no reflection of your personal opinion of Babbitt or the Clinton administration? Gwynand 16:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I can find no notable sources that called this scandal Wampumgate, including in any of the references linked from this article. How should this article be renamed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlahorn ( talk • contribs) 17:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:External links. Do not revert again. Thank you. Ward3001 14:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a short page, it is not honest to say "no Cited sources", when it has 7 news links for ref. for the info on the page. As you wish for now. Telecine Guy 03:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
If you do not like it try reading the links and them hit the edit button and fix it. Telecine Guy 15:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
You wrote : "It was believed that Bill Clinton's Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt responded to lobbying by the rival Ho-Chunk, Mdewankaton Sioux and six other tribes, mostly from neighboring Minnesota, who felt the Hudson casino would interfere with their own highly lucrative gambling operations."
First of all, "it was believed" should really not be used when creating a Wikipedia page. It most likely was also "believed" by some that he did nothing improper. Reading this sentence, and the whole artice for that matter, helps lend to the idea that although Babbitt was not convicted of anything, there are still many reasons to condemn him. This may all be true, but it does not belong in a wiki article.
I'm certainly not looking to get into a discussion with you on Babbitt's ethics or anything like that, I have no opinion on it and certainly don't know enough to disagree with you. I'm trying to have an open discussion and point out that this article is very one-sided. Suggesting that I should go through the articles (that you picked out) to present a more neutral POV shouldn't be the basis point. That is either sarcasm, suggesting that I won't/can't find any info to the contrary, or an admittance that the article is one-sided.
Do you think this article has no reflection of your personal opinion of Babbitt or the Clinton administration? Gwynand 16:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)