Jump to content

Talk:Ken Starr

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


comment 1

[edit]

1st paragraph: Is it correct to say Starr's report led to Clinton's impeachment? Is it more accurate to say "led to calls for Clinton's impeachment"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.129.109.187 (talk • contribs) .

comment 2

[edit]

This seems to be written by a partisan. The incorrect use of Democrat rather than Democratic is a big tip-off. Also, no mention of Starr's days as a Republican political operative, and the only reason that he was respected by both sides at the time is because the media didn't tell us of his side-dealing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.212.185.253 (talk • contribs) .

comment 3

[edit]

This barely covers the whole reason the independant counsil was setup. It was not to investigate sexual affairs, but to investigate fiscal matters about the Clintons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.182.145.110 (talk • contribs) .

KKK Association

[edit]

Is it really necessary to refer to Starr as a former KKK member? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.108.246.185 (talk • contribs) .

Why not? If it's true, then it is not POV. --Asbl 20:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure it is sourced by a reliable secondary source. Ste4k 06:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo possibly partial?

[edit]

Is this photo of Ken Starr slightly skewing the bias of the article or is it just me??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.182.145.110 (talk • contribs) .

Attempts to retain pro-Starr slant

[edit]

I find this page unacceptably slanted in favor of Starr. I am currently adding information documented in Conason and Lyons's book The Hunting of the President, probably the most well-documented and researched book available on the topic. However, another user has taken it upon himself to reverse the bulk of my changes. I do not intend on getting into any kind of "pissing match" with this user, but readers should be aware that there is an effort being made to retain the pro-Starr slant of this page.

As an aside, I apologize for not being familiar enough with Wikipedia protocols to know how to sign my own posts. I have a learning curve to ascend. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.144.127.183 (talk • contribs) .

To sign your posts, add four tildes, as such ~~~~. If you feel that your contributions are unjustifiably reverted, please demand from whomever reverted your contribution to fully explain why he/she reverted you. --Asbl 04:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I sent the user a reply, to which he/she has not responded. I requested that instead of unilaterally reverting my contributions, that he/she have the page listed as "disputed" or whatever other Wikipedia protocol might be appropriate. I have reinstated my contributions and will be interested to see how long they may last. Thank you for responding! -- 70.144.127.183 05:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Black Max[reply]

Since you are new to Wikipedia, read, The Five Pillars of Wikipedia to get a general overview.--Asbl 06:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What an absolute joke. This article has way too much commentary from his opponents, and makes it completely out of balance. It paints him as an extremist and a political hatchet man, which is what his opponents want. His supporters would disagree, and that is barely established.155.99.172.89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Minor edit in favor of the truth

[edit]

I have added the word "nearly" in this sentence:

"He later submitted to Congress the Starr Report, which nearly led to Clinton's impeachment on charges arising from the Monica Lewinsky scandal."

Bill Clinton was never impeached, he may have been "nearly" impeaced but stating that the starr report resulted in the impeachment of Clinton is besides the truth/facts

Ferre 16:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. He was impeached. He was not removed, but for the record, he was impeached. --Asbl 04:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Steiner

[edit]

Please consider merging in the information from this other article. Thanks. Ste4k 06:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit off the side, mom.

[edit]

" Starr was born in Vernon, Texas in 1946, the son of a Church of Christ minister and part time barber". This is unclear, unless his dad was a minister and his mom a part-time barber (or the other way around).

His father was both a minister and a barber. jdf

Why no mention of the cost of the Starr Report?

[edit]

Why no mention of the costs and funding of the Starr Report here?

This man is known for the Starr Report, it's part of history now.

So why is there no mention of the astronomical sums spendt on this and the funding of this extraordinary investigation into a man's extramarital affairs??

Because he had nothing to do with funding the investigation. Everything he did he was asked to do by Janet Reno and the people he reported to. It would have nothing to do with him, and he is the focus of this article, not the investigation. And by the way, the investigation was not into a man's private affairs. It was an investigation into felonies, and a sexual harrassment lawsuit, not to mention obstruction of justice, abuse of power by the white house, and lying to a grand jury. Get your bias out of here.155.99.172.89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

exerpt from a cnn 1998 article:

Starr Investigation Costs Just Shy of $30 Million By John King/CNN
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/01/star.costs/r
WASHINGTON (April 1) -- A new government report estimates that Independent Counsel Ken Starr's investigation spent nearly $4 million in the six month period that ended September 30, 1997. That brought the three-year price tag of his investigation to just shy of $30 million. John Smith (nom de guerre) 11:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ia the addendum covered? [1]Halbared 17:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why no Starr Report page

[edit]

1) Ken Starr should be a more a bio page. As of today Starr Report redirect to Monica Lewinsky not even Lewinsky scandal, The Starr Report started as a Whitewater probe, see Whitewater (controversy)-Whitewater Development Corporation and them expanded to cover more issues in Arkansas. Anyone agree? (comment 3 three above looks to) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Telecineguy (talk • contribs) 23:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

According to this article Starr's first duty was to investigate the Vince Foster suicide. The Starr Report should at least be properly redirected, which is an issue that can be done by editing and does not directly effect this page. If Kenneth Starr had died the day President CLinton was elected president of the US he would still be without question notable enough to merit an article in wikipedia, since he was US Solicitor General among other positions. Thus however publicized his work as the independent counsel investigating various Clinton related scandals, it is by no means the only thing he ever did that was notable, and so the article should avoid becoming just about this small facet of Starr's long career in law, government and academia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

more comments regarding partisanship

[edit]

I came upon this link from other biographies. Language like...

praised by Republicans and Democrats alike for his fairness and decency

...which is clearly labeled with "Citation need" should be removed following the guidelines on biographies outlined above.

This language would only be necessary if there were suspicions that Starr was not "praised... for his fairness and decency." Ironically, that statement suggests that Starr isn't fair and decent; if he were, cited statements from politicians and judicial records would be more appropriate. The author of the passage seems to suggest that Starr's character requires extra editorial judgment, which is not a biographer's responsibility as stated by Wikipedia.

I implore the author of the above passage to explain these suspicions which he/she so diligently corrected, unless of course his/her uncited assertion has obvious partisan bias. --24.13.242.3 19:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

[edit]

There's a coatrack section of accusations of wrongdoing and conspiracy theories that is completely unsourced. I've commented it out, per WP:BLP. COI disclosure that I've worked with the man, and currently serve on a committee that he chairs. THF (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Someone had to do the right thing

[edit]

Seriously. Who is "courage campaign"? A bunch of butthurt losers protesting like protest monkeys about the LAW? It's the LAW. YOU LOST!

Beside that, there has to be hundreds of anti-prop 8 petitioners out there. This makes their campaign un-noteworthy.

Bot-created subpage

[edit]

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Kenneth Winston Starr was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Only topics germanely related to a given page should be given internal links to Wikipedia articles. Mere locations, dates, terms in general usage and such should not. Nor should words perhaps unfamiliar to some readers but used in common fashion; they are listed in Wiktionary for those who do not know them. Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV paragraph

[edit]

I removed the following paragraph on the basis that it's both unsourced and hopelessly non-neutral in its use of language. The only question is - is a sourced version of the sentence about the theatrical productions worth reintroducing?

Starr Reports

[edit]

As with many controversial figures, Kenneth Starr was the subject of often biased political satire. Both the book, And the Horse He Rode in On, by James Carville, and the stage play, Starr’s on Broadway, by Eric Zaccar, attempt to add a comedic, arguably negative light to Mr. Starr’s time as special prosecutor. And of course, his opposing liberal media might contend that that Mr. Starr’s own lengthy and detailed Starr Report, that chronicled his investigation of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, was one of the most extensive and tasteless jokes ever perpetrated on the American people.

There is enough anti-Clinton text in this article to call it neutrality in serious doubt. As this is a factual account of social media about this case it should stand, perhaps there was pro-Starr media that was not included? During congressional and senate hearings the "Starr Report" was shown to be factually inaccurate (Ken Starr lied). I think the fact that the report was considered pornographic should be included as I can't recall any reasonable legal brief ever meeting that standard. Shjacks45 (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said above the Starr Report or maybe more generally Kenneth Starr investigations are worth having a seperate article. Kenneth Starr was the special counsel, but he had a large staff assiting him in his work. Starr has done many things before than and since then that would create notability for him if he had never interacted with Clinton. How his having been special counsel investigating Clinton may have infleneced Pepperdine's willingness to appoint him head of their law school is hard to know, but since he had been both a federal judge and porbably more importantly US Solicitor General, Pepperdine would have probably been willing to appoint him law school dean when they did even if he had just recovered from a coma he had been in since before Clinton was elected. His current position as president of Baylor University would without any other positions he has held make him notable, altough whether he would have been given that position without his past offices is unknowable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omitted Starr's prejudice

[edit]

Starr's case previous to SP appointment was Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler where he fought to protect sexual discrimination. Shjacks45 (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted censorship via spurious assertion of WP:RS and intimidation of editors

[edit]

Regarding continual attempts to expunge any and all references to a very large mass of opposition the Fiske and Starr conclusions regarding the death of Vince Foster with a single throw-away "conspiracy theorists" line, I relay the following from my talk page:

This is your last warning; the next time you add non-reliably-sourced material, as you did at Ken Starr, Vince Foster, and Suicide of Vince Foster, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. "Failure of the Public Trust" is self-published, and neither World Net Daily nor AIM are reliable sources. Please, read WP:RS, WP:SPS, WP:NEWSORG, and WP:SOURCES. (I note from your previous blocks that you're already aware of WP:3RR.) AV3000 (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Av3000, would it be possible for you and I to have an intelligent conversation -- or must it proceed straightaway to histrionic spasms of dire, impending doom delivered at the edict of Big Cheeses wielding Olympian power? Several points:
1) The matter of WND is not as cut-and-dried as I imagine you would like the casual browser of this user-talk page to instantly surmise. For example, the summation of your link to the WND noticeboard is, quoting, with weasel words bold-faced by me: "Consensus appears to be that World Net Daily is not generally acceptable as a source for factual material....
-- The weasel words indicate a LACK of clear consensus, while the following: "...individual citation(s) evidencing WND "unreliability" have not, thus far, been provided. As to whether or under what criteria/circumstance WND might be considered WP:RS, opinion is divided.}" explicitly CONFIRMS a lack of consensus.
2) You have not provided any backing to maintain that AIM is NRS either -- for the sake of argument, I shall assume that a page exists within the Byzantine depths of the Noticeboard, but will also assume that it is just as ambiguous and shot full of self-contradictions, weasel words, and completely unveiled bad motives as the WND one.
3) Miquel Rodriguez is more than a reliable source -- he is, in fact, a primary source; it is not possible for you to logically maintain that the direct audio commentary of Kenneth Starr's former lead investigator in the Foster death is not pertinent because it is hosted by AIM -- unless you're maintaining that it's faked or distorted in some way. -- Are you?
4) Similarly, the FOIA lawsuit (which went all the way to the Supreme Court) by attorney Allen Favish is, by definition, noteworthy. With the lawsuit's author rendered noteworthy on the subject material, then any media organ directly quoting him must also be regarded as reliable (if only situationally) -- unless, once again, you're maintaining that they're lying -- and I do not believe you are prepared to insist upon such.
5) Regarding Failure of the Public Trust -- Patrick J. Knowlton, a primary witness in Fort Marcy Park, is by definition noteworthy and a reputable source of his own disagreement with factual statements asserted in the Starr Report, as is, by subsequent logical extension, his other written commentary on the subject (he shares author credit of Failure of the Public Trust with his attorney John Clarke and researcher Hugh Turley), in re: WP:SPS "....Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." -- The FBI, which interviewed him, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which heard Knowlton's case for submission of an "Addendum" to the Starr Report, qualify in conferring notability.
6) The proper place for this discussion is the talk pages of the articles themselves.--Mike18xx (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article already states that conspiracy theories about Foster's death remained even after the Starr report on it. Giving additional emphasis to Miquel Rodriguez's resignation is undue weight, since all the other counsels and staff members who didn't resign and who agreed with Starr's conclusion are not also named. Further theories about all this belong in the Death of Vince Foster article, not here. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say in general you should seek for multiple sources for any point. If there is only one source for a point that others think is controversial, especially when it is in an article on a living person, this should be weighed accordingly. I am hesitant to rule out the use of any sources, because all sources have some usefulness. This is illustrated further on by the statement that one of the debated sources is "not 'generally' accepted as a source for facutal material". This clearly indicates that like most sources it can at times be used, but should also be used with caution. All sources have some amount of Point of View, and there will be areas where point of view becomes an issue in many sources. At a minimum it is always factual to state that "publication X claimed Y". Once it is stated in those terms the question becomes not the at times controversial (which means that some people will assert it is a worthwhile view while others will totally disagree) position "Y is a verified fact because X said it" but instead "we have verified evidence that X claimed Y" and we can then move to the discussion of two points "is X stating Y notable" and in the case of this article "is X stating Y relevant to the aritcle". There are innumerable cruel, mean, hurtful, hateful and such things said about Mr. Starr, and there would be far more if blogs had come into vogue by the late 1990s, but "Blogger Frank said Ken Starr is an alien agent sent here to undermine our government" may be quite easy to prove, but that still would not matter unless there was any reason to include quotes from Blogger Frank. Another way to look at this is if we are going to move from statements of fact to statements of what has been said by our subject in the media, what type of inclusion rules need to exist for the statements, and how prominent does the media need to be, and how often does the media need to have mentioned the subject. Show A may be much more notable than Show B, but if Show A mentioned Ken Starr once ever, but show B maligned him incessantly 5 times a week for 7 weeks straight and mentioned him at least once a week for an entire year than such would seem to be more worth noting even though overall Show B is less notable. This section is meant to be a discussion of the general issues involved, and how this would tanslate into any specific section of the article is hard to say. I have not even discussed how WP:No original research would interact with using a pubication as the source for the publication speaking ill of someone. It definitely is better to find a Washington Times article about how the New York Times ran an unfiendly article on Kenneth Starr than to just quote the NYT article on the matter if the point is to show media were saying cruel things about Kenneth Starr as opposed to making some non-media observation. The above case is reversable despite the different political outlook of the publications. The different political outlok makes it less likely that the WT would insult Starr thn the NYT, but I would be surprised if it the WT has not run articles that were critical of Starr at times for one reason or another.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allen Favish and or suits he has brought may or may not be notable but stating that a suit he brought is "by definition notable" does not make it so. Since you do not provide the exact citation for the alleged suit here in the talk page, I had to do a general search of wikipedia for Allen Favish and found that his name seems not to appear anywhere. If you do believe this suit is notable, I would encorage creating an article on it and then from that point seeking to introduce references to it and its contents and assertions in other articles. If it is really notable, the article on it will be justified. Since I have never even tried to figure out what the notablity requirements for court cases are, and since I have no knowledge of the nature of Favish's FOIA suit, I have no way to determine whether the suit is notable on my own, I am only saying that arguing something is "notable" is not a good way to prove a point. Demonstrate it is notable by creating the article on the notable thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But you're arguing that the conclusions of Starr's lead investigator and primary witnesses are not notable. It's the crux of your argument -- and it rests upon a circular-logic fallacy which reflexively excludes anything contrary to "official reports".--66.41.95.121 (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking NPOV language in the introduction

[edit]

I have changed the claim that Starr's service as Special counsel inestigating Whitewatergate and other at least somewhat related matters brought against William Jefferson Clinton or some of the laters associates or alleged associates was Starr's most "notable" position to the provable claim that it was his position that recieved the most publicity. The Solicitor General of the United States is arguably more notable than a special counsel, although the opposite position at least when the special counsel was the key figure in bringing forth accusations that lead to the impeachment of the president, is also possible to argue. I am unsure which position is more notable but I would say there is enough counter-argument against over emphasizing the importance of Starr's position as special counsel that we should stick with saying what can be proved, that it was most publicized, as opposed to what can not be proved, that it was most notable, in large part because notable is a loosly defined term, that at some level will depend on your point-of-view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

[edit]

Ken Starr aged pretty well despite his being born in '46. (Seriously, though, that's not Starr) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.5.223 (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ken Starr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation into Donald Trumps purchase of Golden Showers

[edit]

When is this Republican prude going to investigate President Trumps sexual behaviour in Moscow? which has made the USA and the Republican party a laughing stock for the rest of the world. 06:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)06:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)06:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)06:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)06:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)06:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)06:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)06:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)06:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)06:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)06:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)06:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)06:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)06:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)06:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)06:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)06:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)06:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)06:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.107.175.241 (talk)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ken Starr. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ken Starr. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

[edit]

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ken_Starr&oldid=1194723116"