Talk:Jennifer Fitzgerald

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] POV dispute

I added the NPOV and cleanup tags, for reasons that should be obvious. What are the sources for this gossip? I took a pass through it looking for ways to bring it up to snuff, but this whole article is just over-the-top snotty character assasination. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)

  • Everything in the article is sourced to either the two news stories referenced or to the 1992 Spy article, which I should really include. I just need to find it so I can write up a cite (obviously, it's not online). -Daniel Case 16:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Primarily a humor magazine, but also featuring some more serious investigative journalism ...
The 1992 article was written by Joe Conason, who has a pretty serious reputation. Perhaps you should read it ... it was by no means a tabloid hit job.
And are you going to say The Times of London is a scandal sheet too? That's one of the other sources. Daniel Case 05:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I really don't appreciate NPOV and cleanup tags being placed by IP users who've just been on Wikipedia for a couple of weeks. From your comments above, it seems that it is not so much any content of the article as the article itself that you object to. If that is so, please explain why you believe it to be unencyclopedic. Daniel Case 16:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't really care whether you appreciate me adding the tags, and furthermore you shouldn't assume that if I don't log in, that I'm new to Wikipedia. This article is utterly POV, and if you can't see that for yourself, then perhaps you should take a course in reading comprehension. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
      • What I see from your edits is someone narrowly focused on the use of precise language, as if you were in The Giver or something. Now, that's OK and quite necessary at times.
But a year ago when I first started making edits, I realized you get taken a lot more seriously here if you bother to create an account. You should. It doesn't get you on any spam lists or anything. Daniel Case 05:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I choose not to, and that's my prerogative. If you have a problem with anonymity online, then start your own encyclopedia project, and see how it goes over. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
You would, I think, have to explain to me why it doesn't belong when no one seems to object to Judith Exner, Sally Hemmings, Lucy Page Mercer Rutherfurd, or Gennifer Flowers (Hey, maybe we have a new category here: "Mistresses of U.S. Presidents"!). Yes, I'm aware that there is more documentation on those affairs (or is there ... see the Mercer article, which yes I'm aware has a cleanup tag on it). But there has been enough in the contemporary record from reputable sources to justify this article, and I think that history will reveal more as it has with the other ones.
I really think you need to rethink here. Daniel Case 16:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll check those articles out too, and tag them if they warrant it. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
    • Ok, I looked at them, and the Rutherfurd article is already tagged to cleanup. As for the others, I would suggest you take a good look at them as an example of how to write such an article. The Sally Hemmings article in particular is quite well done. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
      • Unfortunately there are no DNA traces to deal with here. Daniel Case 05:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
        • But there are, and the white side of the Jefferson family has recently come to grips with that.  ;-) --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
  • Daniel, I took a look through some of your other edits, and it's clear that you have an axe to grind. If you grind that axe by pulling pro-right wing articles back to NPOV, that's fine. When you grind that axe by writing articles like this one, it's not. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
    • If you mean to say this entire article, at least my last edit, should be taken right over to dKosopedia, I'll do it.
Again re month-old IP users who lecture those who have bothered to create accounts ... Лайца не учятся курицы, as the Russians say. Daniel Case 05:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Daniel, I am not a "month-old IP user", I am an anonymous user who edits from many differerent machines at various times, and I've been editing and writing for well over a year now. I didn't "lecture" you, I tagged your blatantly POV article. As for trying to look clever by tossing off a quip in a foreign language, it only makes you look like a pompous twit. I'm fluent in German, but I'm not going to stick a German proverb here to attest to my cleverness. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
          • Re your anonymity: I understand why, if you use many different machines, you might be unwilling to set up an account out of fear of leaving cookie files where people you don't want to get at them can get at them.
However, as recent events on Wikipedia have demonstrated, that might not last forever. I use many different machines, but I only edit from one or two. Daniel Case 21:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You can quarrel with the writing. I took a look at the last edit and found some things that needed changing. And I will convert the external links into References. I will track down the Liz Smith column that reported Bush telling Barbara. I will put in Millie's Book as a reference. I'll find the Post article on Fitzgerald's light punishment. But I remain convinced that this is as encyclopedic as any other articles on presidential mistresses, whether officially acknowledged as such or not, and I somehow doubt you'd be pleased with any such edits. Either you have an encyclopedia with articles on every presidential scandal, or you have none. I appreciate the suggestions but not your tone. Daniel Case 05:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Kitty Kelley? Are you kidding me? The woman who claimed that Nancy Reagan had an affair with Frank Sinatra? What next, are you going to try citing L. Ron Hubbard? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
      • As the article now says, her account was checked out quite thoroughly by her publisher at the time and held up (this is in the Spy article). No one has ever disputed or called attention to that.
By the way, I appreciate the thoughtful comments you made about my revisions to the article here. They will really help in further revisions. Daniel Case 21:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Did you all forget The Vanity Fair article?

Or The Los Angeles Reader article called "George Bush - Loverboy" or the SNL skits about this torrid affair? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparky (talk • contribs)

  • Uh, yes. Can you give us some clearer sources so we can look them up and cite them? (I'm not being sarcastic ... I really want (see above discourse) as much to back this article up with as possible). Daniel Case 21:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

These are now referenced in the article thanks to Spy, but only indirectly. If anyone's got the originals, I'd love to see them. Daniel Case 04:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Revision for POV, innuendo and citations needed

I would first say that I came across this article purely by chance, have no particular interest in American politics, and have edited it (spending far too much of my time doing so) simply out of a concern to break the apparent editing deadlock. If this were a newspaper report, it would be a great piece of journalism, building up a strong case to prove the point, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and has different precepts, namely NPOV (a neutral point of view). In a contentious subject such as this, the only way to create an agreed article is adhering closely to Wicki rules. Furthermore, close referencing is the only way that statements will not be continually questioned (which wastes everyone's time and energy).

I have gone through taking out anything that was a suggestion, or worded with an implication, e.g. " Michael Dukakis' mother Euterpe Dukakis alleged that Bush had committed adultery, without making reference to Fitzgerald." She didn't make reference to Kylie Minogue either.

If any allegations have been made and then appeared in print or broadcast media, then it is quite legitimate to state that that has happened and also reference where it has happened. There may well be other things that the writer knows or can deduce, which would be acceptable if they were a journalist, but not in Wiki under NOR (no original research). I feel sure that nevertheless there will be quite enough for any moderately intelligent person to make their own deductions throughout.

I would say I was a little taken aback by the discussion on this page, which was getting close to the boundaries of civility and respect. It doesn't matter about the background of editors: what matters is whether what they are saying is correct, factual and backed up with appropriate references. If an editor is new, then that is all the more reason for being courteous, encouraging them, and helping them by explaining the Wiki policies. Exaggerated statements like "this article is utterly POV" cannot solve the issue. It cannot be utterly POV if it states things that have appeared in the press or on TV. There might be a POV bias (there clearly is), but the bias needs to be corrected and the facts (which are not at all POV) be left in to speak for themselves.

I suggest the article be retitled as "Bush and Fitzgerald alleged affair", as it's not about her: it's about the alleged affair.

I suggest study of a recent featured article Triumph of the Will for how a contentious subject can reach the right outcome, and also for the useful referencing system.

I hope we can all work together constructively to make Wiki a reliable source of information. I have no doubt the editors working on this page are spending their time and effort with the best intentions.

Best Tyrenius 05:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bush and Fitzgerald alleged affair

Outside of that, unfortunately, very little is known about her life. I fear any separate biography would struggle to be much more than a stub, and eventually the two would be merged back into one. I see this all the time on AFD. Daniel Case 15:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I know virtually nothing about this but just watched the PBS documentary on President GHWB. In my opinion, which counts for nothing with regard to an encyclopedia, both versions are plausible. Sure, conceivably there could have been an affair. At the same time, people will talk, and the rumor mill will churn, when a noted politician has a trusted assistant over decades, who is of the opposite sex, especially during the 1970s and 80s. Successful politicians tend to stick with a tight knit group of advisers and assistants. 162.84.133.162 (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Points needing reference

I have removed the following from the article, on the basis that they need a reference, and can be reinserted when a reference is available. This means the article is now "clean".

  • Friends of the Bush family have said there was visible strain in their marriage at this time.[citation needed]
  • This job move was engineered by the rest of his staff, who resented her influence.[citation needed]
  • His campaign staffers accused their counterparts in Bob Dole's campaign of spreading rumors about the affair.[citation needed]
  • Late in the campaign, rumors that reports were about to hit the media about Bush and Fitzgerald being alone together in a hotel room for most of a night caused the stock market to fall for a day.
    • We have a citation for this now, and more detail.
  • On October 20, 1988, Dukakis campaign aide Donna Brazile publicly accused Bush of adultery and was immediately forced to resign.[citation needed] These allegations were not published.
  • Bush was, according to a Liz Smith column, worried about the import of the article enough to warn his wife, but the story did not have much impact.[citation needed]
  • Whispers about Fitzgerald also found their way into the media. [citation needed] Candidate Clinton's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, suggested that Bush would be wise to not focus too much on Gennifer Flowers, because she had heard that Bush had his own "Jennifer with a 'J'" problem.[citation needed]
  • Conservatives and Republicans dismissed the allegations, contrasting its source—a footnote referencing the recollections of a then-dead man—with Flowers's taped phone conversations and on-the-record interview with the Star supermarket tabloid. Clinton denounced the story, saying he sympathized with Bush and didn't like such investigations no matter who was their subject.[citation needed]

Tyrenius 06:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and Clean-up tags removed

I have removed these tags on the basis that the article has been thoroughly examined and revised by at least one new editor, not previously involved with the article. Possible POV statements have been deleted or amended. References have been inserted and closely tied to statements so they can be checked. Any statements which may be valid and are not yet referenced have been removed from the main article and stored on this page. This means they are available for viewing, but their veracity has not yet been confirmed. They can easily be reinstated with a reference (and their position in the article checked in the edit of 05:48, 7 March 2006, if needs be). The article as it exists after these changes is up to the standard of other acceptabe Wiki articles.

I have taken the references on trust, but they are there, thanks to Daniel Case's good work, if anyone wants to examine them more closely.

I hope the editing of this article will proceed amicably, and if any additional, potentially disputable, points are referenced when included, then there should be no problem.

A note: it is not necessary to test external sources for NPOV. They may well be POV, but Wiki's job is to record what their view is (as well as any opposing points of view for balance).

Tyrenius 06:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I put the cleanup tag back in. There are lots of missing words, typos and unnecessary use of passive voice. NPOV seems resolved but a thorough proofreading is in order. -Cleanr 11:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, as the original writer of much of the article, I have taken upon myself to do the copyedit. I didn't see a lot of typos but yes, the voice as well as a lot of sentence joinings needed to be changed.
In the course of doing so I had to reinstate, although less specifically, some of the assertions we've parked out here in order that some sections make sense (particularly 1988) and flow better. Hopefully this will not disrupt the happier NPOV we've achieved (in fact, good copyediting can go a long way toward resolving POV problems). Daniel Case 03:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


While I don't see that it rates re-instating the Clean Up tag, the first paragraph of the "1992 Presidential Election" has a fragmentary second sentence. Clearly the article needs further copyediting. --Kbrooks 20:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Fragmentary second sentence deleted. Tyrenius 23:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bold text

Bold text should be used for the article title when it is first used in the introductory paragraph. It should not be used for emphasis in the body of the article.

Tyrenius 06:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unencyclopedic?

Would the anon who put this tag on please come here and explain what they mean? Daniel Case 23:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tag since there was no explanation and the article is well referenced. The only reason I can think of that would make the topic (the tag applies to the topic, not the text) unencyclopedic is if it was just a rumor. -- Kjkolb 16:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. While much of the article is devoted to the rumored affair, it is not about the affair per se, and I tried to have it sourced as reliably as possible (since, IMO, never-proven rumors can be discussed in articles if there is any serious effort to assess their truth that we can use as a source and the effort or efforts do not disprove it). Daniel Case 17:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
A rumour or allegation can be a valid subject if its presence is a reality, i.e. the allegation might not be true, but it is true that there was an allegation or rumour, which was reported in the media etc. It's not a Wiki editor's job to make value judgements as to the truth of the allegation. It is the editor's job to record that somebody made it, as it is something on public record. If an editor tries to determine whether it is true or not, that then becomes primary research, which is not allowed for Wiki.
Tyrenius 18:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. That's what I meant, but I was not specific enough.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjkolb (talk • contribs) 20:58, 17 April 2006

[edit] Photo

Anyway to get a photo on this page? --evrik 15:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I just found that I do indeed have my copy of the original Spy from August 1992. I scanned the cover and put it in the article, although not at the top.
It's actually very fortuitous ... it means some stuff we had to leave out because no one was sure of the sourcing can now be put back in. I'll be making the appropriate edits soon. Daniel Case 22:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "In a variety of positions"

This particular sentence was raised on the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard. The particular usage in the article of this quote, implying as it does a Wikipedia endorsement of the Spy implication, was quite inappropriate, and is an egregious violation of the WP:BLP policy. Please do not insert such material again. It is entirely appropriate to describe the reporting of the allegations; it is not appropriate to do so in such a way that explicitly or mockingly disparages the subject. Nandesuka (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant in the context of the complaints that the media never made any serious attempt to investigate the rumors that were widely spread in Washington for years, at the same time Hart's and Clinton's were all over the news. I have moved it down to that section; please do not revert that change. Daniel Case (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Added two sources as well on this one. Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Also cited the original Post article. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)