Talk:Wampumgate

"Wampumgate"
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)


 * After some research, I propose "1995 Native American gaming controversy" to match the title of the Native American gaming page. I'll wait a week for discussion before moving this page. Jlahorn (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Never mind - found one ok-ish source, and a paywalled article in The Economist implies that there is at least one more reputable source. Jlahorn (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Should stay at Wampumgate. Of all the Clinton-era scandals, real or imagined, the name for this one has brought the most amusement over the years.  And used as as a chapter title in  Ann Coulter's High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton (1998).   Wasted Time R (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

[Untitled]
Please see Citing sources and 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)


 * It is perfectly honest to say "no sources cited" when, in fact, no (or almost no) sources are cited. The shortness of the article does not exempt it from a firm policy of Wikipedia on verifiability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. There are many short articles that include citations. Additionally, if it has a thousand external links and no citations, it is still uncited. Ward3001 21:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I tagged this article as possibly NPOV. It comes off as very one-sided.Gwynand 14:46, 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)


 * NY Times, RENO REQUESTING A COUNSEL TO LOOK AT BABBITT MOVES February 12, 1998, By DAVID JOHNSTON, Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1.
 * NY Times WEB OF INFLUENCE -- A special report.; Casino Inquiry Pushes Babbitt From the Pinnacle to the Brink January 11, 1998, Late Edition - Final, Section 1, Page 1
 * NT Times, Mr. Babbitt's Troubling TestimonyOctober 31, 1997, Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 26
 * NY Times Sinking of Casino Plan Makes Tribes Cry Foul September 10, 1997, Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 18.
 * PBS SECRETARY BABBITT IN THE HOT SEAT, October 30, 1997
 * Babbitt Probe to Focus on Memory of Discussion Washington Post, March 29, 1998; Page A08
 * Report of the Independent Counsel

POV Discussion
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)


 * Good points, the "It was believed" was a quote from a NY Times quote, not mine. Most of the info here is from NY Times pages. I agree with your point and will rewrite. The no ref tag must go, as all the info on the page is cited in the pages from the NY times, Washington Post and the IC report.


 * It's not a "no ref" tag. It's a "needs additional refs" tag. Ward3001 21:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)