Talk:Starr Report

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Markbassett in topic POV

POV

edit

This page is absurdly biased, incomplete, and essentially advocates as an attack on the document it purports to explain. A previous commenter wrote "Wow." and I think that understates the degree of bias in this piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.122.116.114 (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Given the comments above and my personal opinion on the style of this article, I marked with POV in addition to ONESOURCE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llappall (talkcontribs) 01:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

User:Llappall - Just added to Starr Report, the 11 points, so it’s no longer ONESOURCE and at least better by having more material that makes the prior POV a lesser factor. Tags have been removed. Just for completeness thought I should post: Was there anything else you particularly had in mind for here ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Details Of The Report

edit

It would be great to have some details of what the report says and the evidence it provided before attacking the accuracy of the report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorryasshere154 (talkcontribs) 06:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Well there a google provides some reflections, not sure what would be good to add ... I think the Starr report description would be it, any comparison that the Mueller report is not the same basis (DOJ private report vs Congressional Independent prosecutor) or style would be a discussion for the general article.
--- Rebuttal ---
--- Complaints things were missed and/or that files were sealed
Maybe I'll just do the 11 grounds and skip the rebuttal and complaints about what was not gone into. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply