Talk:Keating Five

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of the Past Political Scandals and Controversies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scandals and political controversies. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 5 February 2008. The result of the discussion was Snowball keep.

This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as Start-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Initial comments

The article formerly said the senators were given $1.3M to their campaigns, whereas the source cited in the article on Charles Keating said they got $300K. I am taking the amount out of this article until a source is cited. Ellsworth 20:44, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

the $300k number appears to be correct, and i've cited a source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.94.219 (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I just read this article. 11/17/05. Two things: i missed the part about keating doing time. He was convicted. The reason , or one of the reasons, Lincoln Savings went down, resulted from Keating transferring funds to an anti-porno organisation which he created, headed, or supported. I hope someone out there can provide the documentation on this. i am tired. wsegen@hotmail.com thanks. 66.81.72.235 19:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)will segen


Ummmmmm, what the hell is a fhlbb? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skintigh (talk • contribs) 21:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] inclusion of McCain and Glenn

I am not sure why part of the paragraph keeps getting cut-down. Rkevins82 20:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] secondary sources

Looking for secondary sources, I see all these books.[1] SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McCain emphasis in first paragraph

Is it appropriate that McCain's name be followed "(the Republican nominee for the 2008 U.S. presidential election)" in this article. While the statement is true it can be found on McCain's own page and doesn't seem relevant to this event, which happened many years prior to the nomination. While this event may be relevant to his nomination, his nomination is not relevant to this event. This sort of descriptor might be necessary if there were some sort of ambiguity: ie there were several senators named John McCain.

Beyond that, the rest of the names are listed in alphabetical order, similar to the ordering of the photos, except for McCain's name which appears first. The only objective argument I can think for this ordering is that there is a value in grouping members of the same party together. If that is the reason it seems to make more sense to list the majority party first. However, alphabetical seems like the better approach. If no-one has a response to this in a few days I'll implement the changes myself. Shnoble (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

To add to that, the Corruption allegations section is extremely lopsided basically only talking about McCain when they found his involvement to be minimal. An entire paragraph is dedicated to McCain while a single paragraph encompasses all five. That doesn't seem right. I too agree that the whole argument (found under Aftermath of New York Times trying to bury McCain is also irrelevant. This article either needs details on the others involved beefed up or the emphasis on McCain needs to be cut down. FordGT90Concept (talk) 08:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)