Talk:Kathleen Willey

Classic Example of POV Bias
This is one of the most egregious examples of POV on the site. According to this article, Kathleen Willey is the pathological liar, not Bill Clinton, and the Willey story is really a story about Linda Tripp. Wikipedia should be about a neutral point of view and this one clearly falls short of that mark. --Agiantman 00:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

indeed not. willey is significant for accusations against clinton. the story in part summarizes sworn grand jury regarding that accusation. it does so from a witness known to be hostile to clinton. you want to write about willey's favorite soap operas or the reason for her notability? the story does not say she's a liar -- Linda Tripp and Independent Counsel Robert Ray say she's a liar. reporting that is completely in line with NPOV. Derex 01:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Derex will not relent with his biased contributions to this page. I have attempted to neutralize Derex's one-sided writing on other other sites, and he repeatedly reverses such attempts. Linda Tripp is merely a footnote in the Kathleen Willey story. She was not in the room during the encounter between Clinton and Willey. Derex's removal of the NPOV tag is yet another childish act by a stubborn POV advocate. I am restoring the NPOV tag. Since I contend that he is the problem, Derex should leave the removal up to a neutral third party. --Agiantman 01:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * please state _explicitly_ what is violates POV about the article as it stands. are you asserting that the inclusion of sworn grand jury testimony by a witness as hostile to clinton as tripp is POV for him?  are you asserting that reporting the independent counsel found she lied is POV?  policy requires that someone posting an NPOV tag state with some precision exactly what is allegedely POV.  otherwise, the dispute is obviously impossible to resolve.
 * my characterization of tripp's testimony was taken from a summary on the web. however, you can see for yourself that it is accurate starting at page 287 of this 600 page pdf containing a transcript of tripp's testimony. careful, it's obviously a huge file.
 * btw, "childish" & "stubborn" are yet more personal attacks. if you just insult me enough, maybe i'll realize how very wrong i am.  does it work that way for you?  Derex 02:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Agiantman, it doesn't work like that. It seems to me that your problem is your perception of the veracity of some of the information included in this article.  You need to state explicitly what passages or sources are not true, why they're not true, and how you got that information. --kizzle 02:46, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Eh??? So un-encylopedic it's ridiculous... "Now, of course, she's writing a book about how she was allegedly assaulted by Clinton. Interesting timing, with the elections coming up. She clearly comes across as someone doing a complete rehash of a tired story, and presents herself as one more money grubbing hack." What in hell is this crap? Regardless of Willey's personal character, the most one can do to restate the above would be something like "Willey began writing her account of the assault allegation on (some date)" with a damn good, solid, reference, followed by "It was speculated that the release date was intended to coincide with the impending (presidential? congressional?) (some date) election.", with an even better journalistic source, and the "YYYY election" part wiki-linked to the article about that particular election. If this cannot be done, the above statement needs to go, completely. Come on, people!! This is crap crap crap. 65.112.197.16 03:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Kizzle, You Don't Understand NPOV
"The policy of having a neutral point of view is not to hide different points of view, but to show the diversity of viewpoints. In case of controversy, the strong points and weak points will be shown according to each point of view, without taking a side. The neutral point of view is not a "separate but equal" policy. The facts, in themselves, are neutral, but the simple accumulation of them cannot be the neutral point of view. If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral." Neutral_Point_of_View

Questions to Ask
You need to ask. . . 1. Are there any witnesses who support Willey in this case? Where are their stories? 2. I remember Tripp's account to be pretty consistent with Willey's. I also remember watching her on Larry King say that Willey was telling the truth. Where can I read the grand jury testimony of Tripp? Where is the source for Tripp's testimony? 3. Are there any facts that support Willey's credibility? Wasn't she a Democratic activist? Didn't she pass a lie detector test? 4. Why is only Willey's credibility attacked in this article? This is a "he said/she said" tale. What about Clinton's credibility? Afterall, Clinton has admitted to lying in other matters, has admitted to engaging in sexual relations in his office before, has been accused of rape and making unwanted sexual advances towards other women, and paid $850,000 to settle a sexual harrassment lawsuit. --Agiantman 03:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * look up for a link to the testimony (google is your friend). customarily, one actually edits an article before crying "NPOV". if you have facts supporting willey's account, provide them. i trust you will also provide those facts you uncover that do not support her -- just as you were so careful to do in the espy & broaddrick articles (i salute your meticulous neutrality).  i'm checking out of this page for a week.  so, have fun with it. Derex 03:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I just tried to find Tripp's grand jury testimony with Google and couldn't locate it. It appears you couldn't find it either, or else you would have added a citation. If you can't back up your contribution with the source, it should be deleted. Also, as anyone can plainly see, I edited the article before you polluted it with your biased commentary. I am not going to play that game again where I edit the site and you revert my edits. You have already deleted the NPOV tag. I have given you a road map to make the changes ... let's see you exercise a little neutrality and make them. --Agiantman 04:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Kizzle, I just read your contributions and discussions in other areas. LOL! Based on your very political comments elsewhere in wikipedia, it should be clear to all why you don't see the POV problem with this article. --Agiantman 04:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

ad hominem personal attack

 * Riiight. I bow to your mastery of NPOV.  And, I do believe you just committed an ad hominem personal attack. --kizzle 04:40, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I said "look up" as in "above". You will find the link in my previous comments. Derex 04:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * LOL! --kizzle 05:17, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle doesn't see a POV problem, but thinks he/she was personally attacked. LOL! Go figure!
 * Do you even know what ad hominem means? LOL! --kizzle 16:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Grand jury report
I just read the grand jury report and I don't see too much difference between Tripp's account and Willey's account. Tripp confirmed that Willey reported the incident to her immediately after it happened. Tripp just thought it was welcome activity, not unwelcome, based on Willey's demeanor. Of course, Tripp was not in the room when the incident occurred, so she can't know what exactly transpired. She did say that, "she absolutely believed that [Willey] now believed it was sexual harrassment, that over time she was seeing things with a different perspective." I could not find any support for the statement: "Willey told Tripp that she and Clinton had smooched—but there was no talk of a sexual assault." Tripp implies that sexual activity took place and I could find no reference to "smooching."

Tripp's Willey related testimony is really about her conversation with White House counsel Bruce Lindsey. She said, "[Lindsey] wasn't willing to concede that anything ever happened. I mean the party line I was getting was that this did not happen.  This did not happen. And he kept waiting for me to agree that this did not happen.  So we weren't connecting there." She said Lindsey's repeated denials "sent chills down [her] spine." Clinton of course later admitted in his own testimony that a private meeting with Willey did occur (another important element missing from the current biased account).

I think it is fine that Tripp's testimony is included in this article, but it should be included with balance and without the pro-Clinton/anti-Willey slant.

P.S. Thanks for the compliments about my mastery of NPOV. I work hard at it and the recognition is nice. Thanks! --Agiantman 10:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

No problem, keep up the good work douchebag! :) What's preventing you from adding balance to this article yourself? --kizzle 15:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Douchebag? Is that an expression of civility? So much for your complaints of being personally attacked. Your professor, user:derex (sockpuppet for user:wolfman), has followed me to five sites to which I contributed and reverted/appended all of my entries, this article included. I do not have time to waste playing games with him. The goal of wikipedia is to write from a neutral point of view, not from a biased perpective and hope someone else fills in the rest of the story. I dispute the neutrality of this article and will restore the NPOV tag for the fourth time. If it is again removed without neutrality being restored, I will refer the matter to several administrators for appropriate action. --Agiantman 10:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * By "douchebag" I was returning your definition of civility in kind. All I did was post asking what specific passages do you have a problem with this article and the response from you was a snide remark ("LOL!...it should be clear to all why you don't see the POV problem with this article") dismissing my point of view because of posts I made on other pages.  So I don't feel I owe you one iota of civility in discussing the matters on this page.  And go cry to the administrators if you want, I didn't violate 3RR or anything else.  I frankly can't understand why you're fine with simply bitching and moaning on this page about the neutrality of the article when clearly you have information which you would like to add to balance out the article but have refrained from doing so. --kizzle 18:10, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, sockpuppet generally refers to two concurrently used logins... I didn't realize it wasn't ok to change your username on Wikipedia, my mistake. --kizzle 18:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Definition
You are incorrect again, Kizzle. A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name. Read about it here: Sock_puppet. I know you are a young student with a lot to learn, so I will cut you some slack.--Agiantman 00:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "A person using multiple accounts legitimately must refrain from using the different accounts in any way prohibited to sock puppets and from using one account to support the position of another, the standard definition of sock puppetry" - Sock_puppet


 * To use one account to support the position of another requires concurrent or adjacent logins, and to date I haven't seen Wolfman and Derex involved in the same discussions or supporting each other, as Derex's purpose was to keep his anonymity by removing any references to wolves, which might enable people to find him, he rarely if at all uses Wolfman anymore... you might want to read the links you post before you post them to people telling them they have a lot to learn. --kizzle 01:55, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

BTW - I was thinking that the Tripp section belongs in the Linda Tripp article, not the Willey article. The Tripp section here as about as long as the whole article about Tripp. A link could be provided. This page is about Willey, not Tripp. Any thoughts?--Agiantman 00:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

This section was deleted. The deleted content was in violation of Wikipedia Content policies.

More than Facts
This article interlaces fact with opinion. It should be labeled as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ifpk454 (talk • contribs).


 * Examples? Derex 05:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

steele
Article needs some mention of Julie Hiatt Steele, who was bankrupted by legal bills over this business. Steele filed an affidavit in the Jones case that Willey had asked her to lie to corroborate the alleged assault. Starr then charged her with obstructing justice and making false statements when she denied that Willey told her Clinton made a pass at her. Really quite astounding that you can be thrown in jail for not testifying the way the prosecutor would like you to. Hung jury; no retrial. Derex 06:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Typos and unsourced/partisan allegations
I don't edit wikipedia, but maybe someone more familiar with the process will consider these points (if not already corrected).

Under the section "investigation and current status":

-"sexual avdances"?

-"Clinton conspircies"?

-Sentence needs revision: "Willey stated that she believes individuals with ties to the Clintons are responsible for the break-in, filed a police report.[7]"

-"a group new website"?

-The paragraph here is replete with errors and frankly seems a bit biased to me. The WorldNetDaily part is qualified as "a group new [SIC] website led by Joseph Farah who writes about Clinton conspircies [SIC][8]." Yet the sourced reference DOES NOT ONCE state anywhere that Joseph Farah writes about Clinton conspiracies. The referenced site, ConWebWatch is decidedly partisan in its anti-conservative slant.

-WorldNetDaily has a strong right-wing and sometimes sensationalist slant. How about wording that part of the article "a right-leaning and occasionally controversial news website" and deleting the falsely sourced allegation involving Farah?

-"In an interview with Sean Hannity she contradicted her own book.[6]." First, the referenced site is Media Matters for America, which is a left-leaning media watchdog site concerned about conservative bias. This should probably be noted. Second, the supposed contradiction is never explained in this wikipedia article. I am of the opinion that objectivity and fairness requires either a synopsis of the allegation or removal of the suggestive sentence.

199.107.215.231 23:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the "contradiction" needs to be explained. As it now reads, the sentence is almost a non-sequitur.  First, the groundwork needs to be laid.  Ms. Willey has accused a specific individual of threatening her before the Paula Jones case.  The accused individual supplied an alibi.  My synopsis of the Media Matters report is the following:


 * On Sean Hannity's show she said, "FBI checked it out, and they found his excuse to be, for not being there, his alibi, was uncheckable, not so much ironclad as uncheckable."


 * In her book she said, "FBI investigators looked into' the man she suspected of being the jogger -- Cody Shearer, the brother of a Clinton White House aide -- she was told that Shearer had an 'airtight' and 'ironclad' alibi, but another source told me that it was 'uncheckable.'"


 * From this I can only gather that the huge inconsistency is who said Mr. Shearer's alibi is "ironclad" and who said it was "uncheckable." This should be clearly stated in the article and placed in the proper section.  I also wonder how notable the "inconsitency" is and how much weight it should be given in the article.  Ursasapien (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Worst Article Ever
This has to be one of the worst Wikipedia articles I have ever read. I came here wanting to find out information on Kathleen Willey, and then the article starts talking about this Tripp person, who isn't even introduced any where. Someone seriously needs to scrap this whole thing and start over, describing who everyone is, what they have done, and how they relate. Thanks Clayton Kern 12:07, November 15, 2007 (UTC)
 * So fix it. Turtlescrubber 06:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A Scandal A Day
This is the current high profile news worthy activity of their person. You may not agree with the content of that page, but it is a noteworthy, and well documented activity that is current. (19,000) current reference to it.

Some other time I will clean up the tome of the rest of this article to make it neutral and remove non-factual material.

Suggested Edits to make this page objective:

Remove: "According to Linda Tripp's grand jury testimony, she felt Willey pursued a romance with Clinton from the start of her White House affiliation. Willey had speculated with Tripp as to how she might be able to set up an assignation between herself and the president. She routinely attended events at which Clinton would be present, wearing a black dress she believed he liked. According to Tripp's testimony, Wiley wondered if she and Clinton could arrange to meet in a home to which she had access, on the Chesapeake Bay.[4]"

Remove: "Willey has a history of controversial claims including telling the FBI she was pregnant and she had a miscarriage when she did not.[9] On the evening of March 19, 1998, Julie Hiatt Steele, a friend of Willey, released an affidavit, accusing the former White House aide of asking her to lie to corroborate Ms. Willey's account of being sexually groped by President Clinton in the Oval Office.[10] An attempt by Kenneth Starr to prosecute Steele for making false statements and obstructing justice ended in a mistrial and Starr declined to seek a retrial after Steele sought an investigation against the former Independent Counsel for prosecutorial misconduct.[11]"

Edit and add sources to: "On November 6, 2007, her book Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton was published by World Ahead Media. In her book, Willey claimed that on Labor Day weekend 2007, her house was burglarized, with the only thing stolen being a manuscript of her book. Willey stated that she believes individuals with ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton are responsible for the break-in. She also filed a police report.[15]"

This needs to be a factual article not a "Character Assination" — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrSchlagger (talk • contribs) 22:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Kathleen Willey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071111144812/http://news.findlaw.com:80/hdocs/docs/clinton/icreport/appbwiley030602icrpt.pdf(p.7 to http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/clinton/icreport/appbwiley030602icrpt.pdf(p.7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberbot II (talk • contribs) 02:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Project To Kill A Mockingbird
To all who may read. Wikipedia is a virtual common place for Accurate knowledge. Unfortunately our Intelligence Community (IC) had what I like to call an intelligence etiquette plague. This plague was reminiscent of "Operation MOCKINGBIRD" The Central Intelligence Officers responsible for the contagion 3 Intelligence Clandestine Services Agents and Civillian contractor Valerie Plame Subcontracted Nuclear inspections Corporation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanrobison (talk • contribs) 09:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kathleen Willey. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110129133049/http://www.salon.com/news/1999/01/22newsa.html to http://www.salon.com/news/1999/01/22newsa.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

POV edit, undone, noted
Hi! I noticed that this edit: "(cur | prev) 14:44, 25 September 2016‎ 98.253.148.63 (talk)‎ . . (15,105 bytes) (-583)‎ . . (No source and phrased in a conspiratorial way) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)" was done in a way that not only makes the article POV against the well-sourced fact that certain accusations were made by Kathleen Willey, but messed up the article's paragraphing so that the expression "re-married" appeared with no precedent under "Personal life". I have now fixed the article to the best of my ability, keeping RS and NPOV in mind as much as possible. Who is 98.253.148.63, whose edit was at the height of the 2016 election cycle, and who was using Visual Editor? 208.76.28.70 (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kathleen Willey. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014165713/http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9804a/ac-willey.html to http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9804a/ac-willey.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

60 minutes programme
On March 15, 1998, she alleged on the TV news program 60 Minutes...
 * This is in the lede, but there is no mention of it in the article. It needs support. Valetude (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)