Talk:Juanita Broaddrick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

[edit] Gutting of content

Why was so much content gutted from this article, then redirected to an article that is about allegations against various presidents in general that is mostly content-free on this specific subject? Something seems fishy here. Badagnani 11:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There is essentially no content gutted. Except for a sentence or two, this is exactly the same as in the other article. My position is there is no need for multiple copies of the same content. As Broaddrick has zero notability outside this incident, it makes no sense to say this is an article about a person, not an incident. However, if you'd rather organize the material independently, then I don't have a strong objection to that. We can just take the material on Selene Walters & Margie whatever and make those separate articles like this. What I do object to is people repeatedly trying to delete all such content from Wikipedia. Whether it's here or there is just an organizational matter, of secondary consequence. Personally, I found the material much more interesting juxtaposed, as it gave interesting context. But that can be accomplished almost equally well by a sentence or two in each article pointing to the others. Intimations of nefarious intent such as you made above are odious. Derex 06:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should check the date of my comment above. Badagnani 07:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. My comment still stands with the exception of the 1st (don't know about then) and possibly the last sentences. Derex 07:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This page was a redirect for around a year and a half, but was reverted by an anonymous editor citing I cannot find a reason why an entire well-documented article was deleted, so I restored it. This article is not about an individual, but about specific events and claims regarding an incident that involved the individual. The difference between the content of this article and Accusations of rape against U.S. presidents#Bill Clinton is minimal. We either need to restore the longstanding redirect, or reduce and make the content more concise at the summary article. Having this much redundant content isn't helpful. I personally prefer restoring the redirect.-Andrew c 20:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The differences are not "minimal" and this article is about a person, not an incident. We need to have resources on all subjects (including controversial ones) available for our readers and this article serves that purpose. Badagnani 21:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think this article is about a person and not an incident? What information, specifically, do you believe only fits in this article, but not the proposed (and longstanding) redirect? This proposal is not an attempt to remove information, just reduce redundancy. If there is specific information included here, and unique to this page, please tell me what it is. I personally believe that having both (this article, and the large section at the rape accusations article) is too much and just repeating itself. If I'm mistaken,and there is unique content here about the individual (not the incident), I would recommend implementing my second proposal: reducing and summarizing the content at the accusations article, with a main article link back to here.-Andrew c 21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The title is that of a person, so the article is about a person. There were many things that happened, for example, during the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal, and then there is the case of Manadel al-Jamadi. As further information about her life is found and/or becomes available, it can be added here. Let's not try to remove properly sourced information that our readers will come here seeking, thanks. Badagnani 21:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. You are saying that I'm trying to remove "properly sourced information", and I ask again: what information is included here any not the other article? I understand that you believe this article may be foreseeably expandable. And that is the beauty of redirects (and wikipedia). If there come a time when there IS content that belongs here but not the accusations article, then we can simply re-create this article. But I do not believe it is helpful to have the exact same content here twice just because it may be possible in the future to expand this article, but not the other one. Therefore, I would propose again to restore the redirect, with the direct understanding that we can revert the redirect as soon as the article needs expanding.-Andrew c 21:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome because you could have done what I am going to present here. This article's version: 1010 words. Relevant portion of Clinton article: 394 words. That's as it should be (and quite opposite from the repeated, wrong claim that the text of the two is the same). We have plenty of articles that cover a subject in general detail in the overarching page, and in the specific individual's page, it's covered in more detail. There are no problems. Badagnani 22:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)