This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I am new to wikipedia and not sure how this page can be updated, but I think there should be a session about President Clinton's school of public service (www.clintonschool.uasys.edu) on President Clinton's wikipedia page. I would be happy to write the session if I know it will be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.160.69 ( talk) 15:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Further concern arose when Bill Clinton announced that voters would be getting two presidents "for the price of one".

Bill did not say two presidents. He merely said "two for the price of one".

Correct it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.24.205 ( talk) 22:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I would question the necessity of a paragraph outlining the DMCA in this article, but would even more seriously question why it is under the heading regarding Bill Clinton's impeachment trial. 75.177.137.225 ( talk) 04:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

An AP article today by Sonya Ross [1] mentions Toni Morrison recently "clarified the first-black-president title she'd bestowed on Clinton," but it doesn't stay what the clarification was or where it appeared. Anyone know? Шизомби ( talk) 21:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed a factual eror in the ariticle. It says that Bill Clinton was president from 1993-2001. But how could that be true if George W. Bush was elected in 2000. So if what i say is correct, could someone please correct it. I'm having trouble figuring out how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mataaron83 ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Presidents are Elected in november the year before the current presents term ends. President Bush was elected in 2000 but became President in 2001. So therefore President Clinton"s term ended in 2001. Jpc100 ( talk) 02:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just created List of posthumously-born notable people. Not sure where to mention it in Clinton's article. Any suggestions? -- JackofOz ( talk) 03:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That he was born after the death of his father is already touched upon in Bill Clinton#Early life. Tarc ( talk) 12:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There is information on Clinton's environmental policies and actions scattered all around wikipedia, but it barely gets a mention here on the official Clinton page. Someone oughta compile that information and add it to the page. Some of this information can be found in the Environmental policy of the United States article, there's a little on U.S. National Monuments article, a little here Roadless area conservation. Obviously it's not great for wikipedia to reference itself, but it's a starting point. Shafferl ( talk) 20:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Under education it says that he studied 'Government' at Oxford. I doubt this as no such degree exists. He is also included in the list of famous PPE students at Oxford, here. This sounds much more likely, but could people verify it. Billsmith453 ( talk) 11:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe he left without a degree PonileExpress ( talk) 18:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

See most recent Clinton book (March 2008)- 'Clinton, In This Sign +' (+ = cross); esp about early , earliest ancestors of wife Sen Hillary Clinton; see further, this 9 book series about ancestors of all 43 US Presidents (including Bill Clinton) and 08 candidates - McCain, Obama, Clinton & Romney.

• Clinton In This Sign +
• all 43 US Presidents & ? you
• Obama McCain Clinton Romney - 08 Candidates
• The Clinton Diaries —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredpetrovsky ( talk • contribs) 05:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

/s/ gm,ps - 76.202.165.95 ( talk) 08:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Per the article at Chief Herald of Ireland, Bill Clinton was granted an Award of Arms from the Republic of Ireland. I have contacted Fergus Gillespie, the Chief Herald of Ireland, to gain some more information. Should any be forthcoming I shall add it to the article. PrinceOfCanada ( talk) 04:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

See a description of the arms at http://groups.google.com/group/rec.heraldry/msg/956f0d4d15dbaab2 Spark240 ( talk) 01:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

okay, this is strange. i had always heard rumors that clinton did not get a degree from oxford, which is highly unusual considering he had a rhodes scholarship, which would have paid his full tuition. it is quite unusual for a rhodes scholar not to finish. also, there seems to be no explanation on the web that i could find. i was wondering if anyone had more information on this? googling this only finds sources saying he attended oxford, but no reasons why he left. ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theserialcomma ( talk • contribs) 08:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In Clinton&redirect=no&oldid=229168253 the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "First In His Class" :
  • First In His Class : A Biography Of Bill Clinton, David Maraniss, Random House, 1996, ISBN  978-0684818900
  • David Maraniss, First in His Class: A Biography of Bill Clinton (New York: Random House, 1996; ISBN  978-0684818900).
• "The Survivor" :
  • The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House, John F. Harris , 2005, ISBN  0-375-50847-3
  • The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House, John F. Harris , 2005, ISBN  0-375-50847-3
• "The Natural" :
  • The Natural: The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton, Joe Klein, 2003, ISBN  0-7679-1412-0
  • Joe Klein, The Natural: The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton (2003; ISBN  0-7679-1412-0).
• "The Choie" :
  • Bob Woodward, The Choice: How Clinton Won (1996; ISBN  0-684-81308-4).
  • The choice: how Clinton won, Bob Woodward, 1996, ISBN  0-684-81308-4

DumZiBoT ( talk) 12:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This page is still trying to put way too much inessential information into the opening paragraph. Since he's so controversial, I recommend the opener only give his name, birth date and the fact that he was the 42nd president serving from X to Y. All else should be dumped to later opening paragraphs.

Is it really necessary to say he's the third youngest president? And why then go on to actually list the younger presidents in Clinton's opening paragraph (other than to obtusely connect this page to the presidential age chart link). Neither TR nor JFK's pages even mention their age in their opening paragraphs.

Can you name me another President whose wife is mentioned in the very first paragraph? Why not put Hillary at the end of the full opener as is often done with other memorable First Ladies?

"He is one of only two U.S. Presidents to have been impeached." When you follow the link to "impeached," it takes you straight to the "Impeachment of Bill Clinton" page. But when you follow Andrew Johnson's impeachment link, it takes you instead to the much more politically neutral "Impeachment in the Unite States" page. Is this consistent? 122.26.62.73 ( talk) 06:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Can you name me another President whose wife is mentioned in the very first paragraph? " Name me another president whose wife ran for president herself.-- Loodog ( talk) 02:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Monica Lewinsky in the opening paragraph? The Monica Lewinsky scandal was far and away the most high profile even in ALL of Clinton's presidency. I understand that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, but this is insane. Monica Lewinsky definitely deserves a mention in the opening paragraph. ( CaptainNicodemus ( talk) 10:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC))

I removed the reference to CNN endorsing George W Bush because I thought it was irrelevant. If anyone can point to the CNN poll (regarding Clinton's popularity and legacy) itself being flawed or biased in some way, that would be great, but I don't see how CNN endorsing Bush is worthy of inclusion for any reason, other than to deliberately call into question the results of the poll with no supporting evidence. -- plushpuffin ( talk) 16:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I CERTAINLY REMEMBER THE 2000 ELECTIONS, AND THE ARTICLE I HAVE POSTED DEFENDS MY CLAIM. RESPECT GOOD FAITH, AND REALIZE YOUR, AND NOBODY ELSE'S, OPINIONS AREN'T ALWAYS FACTUAL. Kevin j ( talk) 16:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the line "Sally Perdue's claims were discredited [because she said the alleged affair occurred during her divorce in 1983, when she actually started divorce proceedings years later]" I think this statement is an unwarranted judgment and definitely POV. Just because she got the dates wrong doesn't mean there was no affair; for example, she could have gone through marital difficulties in 1983, up to but not including the actual filing of divorce papers. Her faulty memory for dates does not, by itself, invalidate her claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plushpuffin ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User, YOU ARE MISTAKEN. THE CAPITAL HILL BLUE IS A VERY RELIABLE RESOURCE AND IT DOES DEFEND MY CLAIM. STOP THE VANDALISM, OR I WILL SUGGEST YOU GET BLOCKED. Kevin j ( talk) 16:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The mainstream media statement is only an advertisement I'm afraid. It's no different than Fox New's "fair and balanced" or CNN's "most trusted name in news" mottos. You also did not read the article clearly, because it backs my claims. Capitol Hill Blue is a very reliable resource that presents good debating on various things. Kevin j ( talk) 16:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the recently-added category tag Category:Homophobia. Declining to fully support LGBT rights doesn't necessarily make a politician homophobic, merely pragmatic and electable. If you have a good reason to re-add it, please explain yourself here first. -- plushpuffin ( talk) 02:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

60: The Iraq Liberation Act, Statement by the President, Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release, October 31, 1998 Brian Pearson ( talk) 23:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This link has changed to link #61. I can't seem to find the broken link http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm elsewhere on www.library.cornell.edu. I have found a functioning link, though, at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=55205, "Statement on Signing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998". Please correct link #61 by using this, or any other functioning link. DanniDK ( talk) 15:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Many media outlets have remarked that Bill's speech seemed to ease any tensions or perceptions of tension between Obama and the Clintons. Let's include some mention of this? [2] -- 68.56.17.70 ( talk) 10:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Already did.-- Loodog ( talk) 17:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The current introduction reads:

William Jefferson Blythe III (born on August 19, 1946), later William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton served as the ...

It should probably be simply whittled down to "William Jefferson Clinton (born August 19, 1946) served as the ..." (or "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton" or even "William Jefferson Clinton, born William Jefferson Blythe III") with the fact that he had a diffrent birth name kept in the appropriate early life sections.

This would match the name he has used in his entire professional life and the one he's "notable" for. This would also bring some symmetry with the pages of Leslie Lynch King, Hiram Grant, David D. Eisenhower, etc.-- Tim Thomason 17:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I've changed it.-- Loodog ( talk) 17:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone put his date of birth back in? Angelamaher ( talk) 15:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Done.-- Loodog ( talk) 00:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone would help me standardize the refs into {{cite web}} templates, I think Bill here would merit an FA nomination.-- Loodog ( talk) 20:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Going through the refs in the careful way that is being done, should help towards that goal. Naturally, the citation needed tags and any dubious references would need to be addressed first. DrKiernan ( talk) 18:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This should really get a mention - this guy also used state troopers to pick up women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.55.144.50 ( talk) 20:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Got a source for that claim? Otherwise it violates WP:BLP.-- Loodog ( talk) 21:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages are also subject to BLP. I have removed a name from this section title. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What about his relationship with Belinda Stronach? It is newsworthy because she is a politician. Here is one source:

www.thefirstpost.co.uk/2622,features,bill-and-belindas-excellent-adventure,2

Or his extracurricular activities on overseas trips? Or on Air Force 1 - ask anyone in USAF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.174.9.7 ( talk) 21:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The original author of this section of the talk pages entitled this section "Bill Clinton's continued affairs and liasions with young ladies, like Belinda Stronach"

That does NOT violate WP:BLP as John Vandenberg stated. Specifically the section of WP:BLP which states such information is perfectly acceptable is WP:WELLKNOWN which states the following:

If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article

Vanity Fair magazine fulfills all of these requirements and published an article in the July, 2008 issue alleging Bill Clinton had affairs with both Belinda Stronach and Gina Gershon. User5802 ( talk) 23:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, Vanity Fair is not a reliable source for alleging sexual misconduct - are there any other sources for this? If there are a few, then we can discuss whether this is worth mentioning; I am very wary of WP:UNDUE at this stage. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 23:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I will have to search for more sources. Regardless, the names of Belinda Stronach and Gina Gershon should be in this discussion. The allegations appear to be notable even if they can be proven to be false. User5802 ( talk) 02:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Broken link: http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/cgi-bin/hsrun.exe/Roperweb/PresJob/PresJob.htx;start=HS_fullresults?pr=Clinton Functioning link: http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidential_rating_detail.cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Clinton. Please someone fix it. DanniDK ( talk) 15:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

For the first time Barack Obama will campaign side-by-side with former President Bill Clinton in Central Florida. The two will rally with supporters at Osceola Heritage Park in Kissimmee Wednesday night to continue the early voting. http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/10/25/bill-clinton-to-campaign-with-obama/

Bill Clinton has already made several speeches across the U.S. for the Obama campaign.

Not a single mention of Professor Carroll Quigley in this entire article about Bill Clinton? That is a bit suspicious. He was Clinton's mentor, and Clinton gives much praise and respect to him as one of the most influential people in his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.13.77 ( talk • contribs)

Editor, please sign your posts with four tildas like so: ~~~~

As for adding Carroll Quigley to the article, it's not necessary for you to discuss noncontroversial changes to article on the talk page first. Be Bold and add what you think will improve the article, including your sources. Only if the content becomes debated does talk page discussion become necessary. Cheers.-- Loodog ( talk) 17:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about adding this classic Clintons photo:

http://www.liebtag.org/assets/2008/2/7/bill-hillary-clinton-hippie.jpg

Thanks, Chad Chadcole74 ( talk) 16:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If we were to create a page entitled Non-Free, Out-of-Focus Images of Bill Clinton, sure. Tarc ( talk) 22:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That is awesome.-- Loodog ( talk) 01:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the article, Clinton was elected Governor of Arkansas in 1978 then defeated in 1980, and then went to work for a law firm. Then we read he does various things of a political and government nature but in what roll? By going to the bottom of the page I can discover under external links that he was re-elected in 1983 but no mention of this or subsequent elections in the article. This needs to be fixed, the article is not currently at Good Article level currently. Any offers? Sorry I'm an Aussie, with no access to sources. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 10:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Truman, and LBJ were re elected democrats after FDR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbzguy4u69 ( talk • contribs) 01:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither Truman nor LBJ were re-elected although both served, what is in essence, two terms.

Truman assumed the Presidency when FDR died. Truman ran for President in 1948 and choose not to run for re-election in 1952. Johnson assumed the Presidency when JFK died. LBJ ran fro President in 1964 and choose not to run for re-election in the 1968 elections.

So while both were President for longer than 4 years, each only ran for President once with no re-election. Each was elected but not re-elected. Throckmorton Guildersleeve ( talk) 21:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest adding Simmie Knox artist name next to the picture of the official portrait.

Result: Delist - no improvement to article, no argument against delisting Michael Johnson ( talk) 02:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Fails Good Article criteria 3.a in that it fails to address the main aspects of the topic. I have raised this on the talk page without result. The section on Clinton’s terms as Governor of Arkansas is woefully inadequate. Clinton spent 12 years as Governor (I think – it is hard to follow from the article) and while the first term, and his subsequent loss is reasonably well covered, the following terms are only brushed over. His first re-election is hidden in a passage which discusses his employment by a law firm; subsequent elections are not mentioned at all. We have a very broad brush review of achievements, surely ten years as Governor deserves a greater analysis? I’m particularly interested to find out more about his re-election in 1982 (was it 1982 – the article doesn’t say). How did a man who was apparently unpopular with both his own party and the electorate at large recover so quickly to make such a spectacular return? As a comparison his 10 years as Governor of Arkansas gets 10 lines in the article, while his “sexual misconduct allegations”, essentially voyeuristic and tabloid in nature, gets 18 lines. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 00:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not, the sexual misconduct business had more impact on him and the world than his 10 year stint as Governor of Arkansas. The details of his governership are going to end up pushed into a sub-article at some point. I have created Arkansas gubernatorial election, 1983 as a blank slate to start to collate the details you seek. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 01:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing the point. Not saying his sexual activities should not be mentioned given the publicity they received at the time. However they are just footnotes to history, and really should be written in a way that shows the effect or otherwise they had on his political career. His terms as Governor were significant in their own right and in terms of Clinton's rise as a national figure and eventual ascension to the Presidency. Even if they did end up with daughter articles, they would still need substantial summaries in this article. But not even that exists yet. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 00:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't refs need to be standardized for a GA? I see a lot of lazy refs here.-- Loodog ( talk) 05:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes they do. Happyme22 ( talk) 19:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Attempted Capture of Osama bin Laden section's main claims cite a single editorial and seem awfully biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.230.194 ( talk) 07:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm intending to close this discussion within 48 hours, and currently I intend to delist the article. The reason is as I have discussed above, the article fails to cover the subject adequately. If I can explain further, look at why Clinton is notable. Obviously the President of the United States is a notable subject. But what if Clinton had fallen under the proverbial bus in 1992, would he still be notable? The answer, as a Governor of Arkansas is of course yes. So let's imagine he did die in 1992, and we delete any reference to events after that date. Is the article still a Good Article? The answer is a resounding no. The inadequacies cannot be justified by a lack of information. Clinton's career as Governor would have been well covered by the media at the time, and subsequently would have formed a substantial part of any decent biography of Clinton. So if anybody wants to have a go at rectifying the situation, you have this weekend. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 23:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a little problem with this as the first sentence in the the third lead paragraph: "Clinton left office with an approval rating at 65%, the highest end of office rating of any President since World War II." Here's why: According to the citation [3], Clinton received a 65% approval rating. According to this [4] Ronald Reagan received a 64% approval rating. One percentage point is well within the margin of error and should not constitute an immediate conclusion that Clinton trumps all others when really it was a mere 1%.

It's fine and dandy to say that Clinton received a high approval rating when he left office, because he did, but it is misleading and an overstatment to say that it was the highest approval rating since the end of WWII. Happyme22 ( talk) 03:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A user has now twice added material saying Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about the Lewinsky affair.

1. He was impeached for perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power, NOT just one of those things
2. Lying is not an impeachable offense, or even a crime. Perjury is. So the charge would be for perjury, a very specific kind of lying.
3. Though it's obvious he was lying about the affair for any common use of the word, he was found innocent on perjury counts, meaning a court of law found that he had not been lying, for some definition of the word lying. Were we to contradict that, we'd be committing interpretation of a legal action, AKA original research

-- Loodog ( talk) 23:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Loodog. faithless (^speak) 23:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree he was not impeached FOR perjury but he was impeached AFTER he lied about the sex scandal. One of the most notable events of this man's life is his extramarital affair and sexual scandal involving Monica Lewinksy which lead to his impeachment. The opening paragraph of this article seems to be ignoring such events in favor of a non neutral point of view. User5802 ( talk) 00:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a notable event. It is not the notable event on an 8-year presidential tenure, except for in certain ideological circles. Tarc ( talk) 01:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's get a poll going on this matter. Some users are fiercely arguing that Bill Clinton did not lie and that it should not be included in the article on Bill Clinton. User5802 ( talk) 01:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether you like Clinton or not, ignoring the lying/perjury issue makes about as much sense as leaving Watergate out of the article on Richard Nixon. "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski." (I am doing this from memory here, don't jump on me if a misplace a word) is Clinton's most-remembered quote, much as "I am not a crook." is Nixon's. Plazak ( talk) 01:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course it should be included, but not with that leading POV language. WP:NPOV dictates that such statements need to include a word like "allegedly", "claimed", "believed", "purported", etc... See my point 3 above.-- Loodog ( talk) 02:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this article and the majority of the articles including information on the sexual acts that Bill Clinton performed with Monica Lewinsky and his statements about those acts cause a more non neutral point of view than stating that he lied. Here are some recurring trends I have seen:

1.) The name of Belinda Stronach was erased from this discussion area, thus blocking any further discussion on the matter

2.) Weasel words are constantly used to make it sound as though Clinton may not have done anything wrong, or to rewrite history.

3.) The opening paragraph of this article drowns out any mention of his impeachment by including as much information on the impeachment as is included on the William J. Clinton foundation, his wife, his age when coming into presidency, and his high approval rating when he left office.

4.) Even where statements are made indicating 'possible' indiscretions it seems the article wants to qualify those actions with "but [he] subsequently was acquitted" or "After his impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999, Clinton's rating reached its highest point at 73% approval."

Perhaps the senate found him not legally guilty but there needs to be something in this article that says he screwed up. There's no happy go lucky way to do this. Bill Clinton, the president of the United Sates was getting oral sex while in office, behind his wife's back, from his 22 year old intern, left semen stains on her dress, stuck a cigar in her vagina and said he didn't have any sexual relations with her to the face of every American.

Take a look at the Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky articles. Do you think these women will ever be remembered for anything else? "Gennifer Flowers is a woman who claims to have had a relationship with former U.S. President Bill Clinton."... "Bill Clinton admitted to having had an 'inappropriate relationship' with Monica Lewinsky."

"Claims" and an "inappropriate relationship?" What IS that? He admitted to having sex with Flowers and DNA from his semen was found on Lewinsky's dress! Are we just going to collectively agree to tiptoe around reality? Or is wikipedia a higher level informational tool where the facts and bitter truth come out, regardless of how offensive it may be to politicians or degrading for a society to accept. User5802 ( talk) 03:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Respectively:

No one is denying that good ol' Bill did any of that, but what exactly would you like to add? And respectively

1) I don't know anything about Belinda Stronach's removal.

2) Those aren't weasel words. These are common journalistic neutrality words and appear in ANY biographical article for contested facts about ANYone in ANY periodical or news organization. I fail to see why this article should be an exception.

3) He has done other things in his 60-odd year life in public service than get his dick sucked a half dozen times.

4) He was acquitted. That was the result. If he had been convicted, that would have been included. Why would we remove the result of time-consuming high-profile legal action?

But we're getting off-topic. What would you specifically like to change in this article?-- Loodog ( talk) 03:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The article should state that he lied. The article should make it clear that the American public was lied to and that Bill Clinton engaged in sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. User5802 ( talk) 01:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Taking that in three parts: (1) lying, (2) lying to the American public, and (3) having a sexual relationship with Monica.

(1) and (2): Insofar as lying in a court of law (perjury), we cannot say that he did because the official court case says he didn't, or rather "reasonable doubt" that he did. Therein lies the distinction between colloquial common speech (of course he lied in court) and delicately phrased journalism (alleged perjury).

That being said, I would go for the inclusion of a statement like, "The majority (x%) of the American public believes Clinton lied/mislead about the affair." would be fine with a good neutral source to verify it. This statement is pretty obviously true, so you shouldn't have any trouble finding a source.

(3) The "Lewinsky scandal" section says "Clinton's sexual relationship with a 22-year-old White House intern named Monica Lewinsky resulted in the Lewinsky scandal." so your point (3) is already addressed.

Best.-- Loodog ( talk) 02:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, some people are acting like the article makes no mention of Lewinsky, which it obviously (and rightly) does. As Loodog has stated, Clinton was tried for perjury, not lying, and was not convicted. Believe what you want, but inserting all this "he lied" stuff would be akin to going to the O.J. Simpson article and saying, "he was found innocent, but you know he did it." Clinton was charged with perjury (among other things) and acquitted. We don't need anyone's personal take on the matter. Just the facts, ma'am. faithless (^speak) 02:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Even though he was acquitted by the United States Senate, the fact that he committed perjury and obstructed justice have, in fact, been proven in a court of law. He was sanctioned, and declared in contempt of court, for committing those crimes. Since this was civil contempt, the penalties were fines, instead of jail time (jail penalties were indeed an option, but he was still the President at that time, which was likely one reason that the judge decided against it). Clinton was ordered to pay over $90,000.00, as a result of this contempt citation.

Furthermore, after he left office, there was the possibility that he would be charged in criminal civilian court, as our Constitution allows, for federal officials who have been impeached (whether or not they were convicted by the U.S. Senate). He avoided being charged however, after entering into a negotiated agreement, in which he would admit to lying under oath, to avoid a criminal trial (and possible imprisonment). He refused to give up his law license, however, as a condition of these negotiations. However, the federal court that found him in contempt referred the matter to the Arkansas Supreme Court for possible disbarment. The U.S. Supreme Court was about to formally disbar him; he resigned from the Supreme Court bar before they could do so, however.

If Clinton was not guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, he could have fought, or appealed, the federal court contempt citation. But he was, in fact, guilty, and later himself admitted to lying under oath. He is the only president ever to have been found in contempt of court, and the only president who has admitted to lying under oath.

Even the strong supporters of President Clinton and his party have acknowledged that he committed perjury and obstructed justice. This matter was resolved, as of the 2001 plea negotiation, which is legally binding.

To omit these facts from this article is absurd... Furthermore, this article must be included in the American perjurors category. Pacificus ( talk) 08:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Perjury is a crime. To be a perjurer you have to be convicted of it. No conviction = no perjurer. Anything else is original resarch and, bordering on POV pushing. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 11:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Citing a federal court ruling, and an admission by the accused (in a legally-binding negotiation with prosecutors) is "original resarch" [sic]? This is public information. Not even Bill Clinton is still denying that he lied under oath. Pacificus ( talk) 22:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Still does not add up to a conviction for perjury, whatever way you want to present it. We are no more entitled to describe Clinton as a perjurer than we are to describe O.J. Simpson as a murderer. Stick to the facts. If Clinton admitted to lying under oath, then say just that, properly sourced of course. But he was not convicted of perjury. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 23:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a cute, if somewhat distorted, recounting of the events at hand Pacificus, but it does not change the fact that Bill Clinton was never convicted of the charge of perjury. Therefore, such categorization or wording simply will not be appearing in this article. Really do not see why more time needs to be wasted discussing this. Tarc ( talk) 15:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Perjury is indeed a crime, but since this was a civil case, and since the case's defendant was President of the United States at the time, the contempt citation's penalty was monetary, rather than involving jail time. The subsequent plea negotiation, including an admission by the accused, is sufficient for inclusion in that category. Considering that both of those actions are legally binding, and that in the latter, Clinton admitted (in order to avoid a criminal trial), to lying under oath, I agree that we should not waste any more time discussing this.

Again, I think we'd all be fine with public opinion of these things. E.g. 67% of polled believe Clinton admitted to lying under oath in response to one of his quotes. [5] Clinton admitted to misleading people, pollees said this satisfied them 52-44. 60-37 said he should have explicitly apologized. [6] If we can find a particularly poignant polling question, I see no reason to not include it. If you want an outright declaration of wrongs and perjury, reports of public opinion is the closest you're going to get without violating WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV.-- Loodog ( talk) 15:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Let's stick what we can cite. Loodog is right on. Happyme22 ( talk) 00:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I added: Throughout his career, Clinton has been subject to various allegations of sexual misconduct, which have in turn instilled in his public image associations of sexual unscrupulousness and provided fodder for comedians. Clinton has only admitted to his extramarital sexual relationships with Lewinsky and Flowers.

and was reverted for OR. Here's my problem with the current state of that section: it completely ignores why sexual misconduct is a part of his public image. It's been a running gag for the last 15 years that Bill Clinton is a reckless womanizer. Whether this is caricature or not, it is an image he's acquired, which has given comedians endless fodder for satire. Leno still scores off Clinton this way. In terms of sourcing, it's easy to find articles that will attest to the perceived womanizing so why not include something that it, for better or for worse, an aspect of people's image of him?-- Loodog ( talk) 00:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you happen to actually look at the types of sites that that google search returned? worldnetdaily? kissmyass.com? Unreliable, partisan claptrap about Bill Clinton being "known as a womanizer" has no place in the article, and there is no shortage of Wikipedia acronyms ( BLP, NPOV, RS) to rest this position upon. Tarc ( talk) 00:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

My point was it can be sourced. It's a running joke we don't seem to acknowledge in this article.-- Loodog ( talk) 01:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Really, read WP:RS. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Really, read WP:DICK.

1. The BBC has a list of women alleging sex acts with him, saying "allegations about Bill Clinton's private life continue to dog his administration."
2. Capitol Hill Blue talks about woman who claimed sexual assault, which the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post wrote about, before claiming a long history of such incidents with Clinton.
3. Ford worried Clinton was a sex addict according to a new book out.
4. The BBC has an image of Clinton with faces of three of the scandal women around him with the caption, "Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers - all cloud President Clinton's reputation".

It's hardly a violation of BLP to include mention of obvious and sourced reputation.-- Loodog ( talk) 05:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Loodog. This information should be included. I'm glad my initial discussion on lying has stirred up some change in this article. User5802 ( talk) 07:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither of your "changes" will be appearing unfortunately, as they would be serious violations of what has been spelled out above. There is significant coverage of Clinton's sexual peccadilloes in this article. Adding this tabloid-ish flourish is pointless and unacceptable per Wikipeidia policies. Tarc ( talk) 15:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually they are in the article, you are wrong. User5802 ( talk) 19:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(::sigh::)This has nothing to do with your earlier suggestions. I have no intention of changing wording of actual events, that's been settled enough simply on the basis of scholarly neutrality the same way the press writes it.

Wrong. It has everything to do with my suggestion. User5802 ( talk) 19:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fine. I was too timid to speak up before against the majority but your unabashed example of honesty and courage inspired me to follow my visceral conceits and boldly press on against the injustice of status quo and conformity.-- Loodog ( talk) 21:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

My goal here is to convey the perception of Clinton, because, even if Clinton only ever did anything with Monica and Flowers and the rest of the women were attention-craving lying whores, they remain a large part of his image. Every comedian in the US or England has pulled something out of it, and the sources I showed above demonstrate that this is the perception.-- Loodog ( talk) 15:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If that is your goal, then perhaps you should reconsider your membership. The Wikipedia is not here to wax polemic on what you or a token right-wing minority may feel about the perception of Bill Clinton or any other public figure. We're here to provide a encyclopedia that reflects what others, of a reliably sourced nature, report, while keeping in lines with other policies such as verifiability, BLP, and so on. Yes, the source above talk about his alleged history with various women. The article already covers much of that. But trying to tie that all together into a grand description of a history of lurid womanizing is not at all reflecting what that list of articles is actually saying. Distilling the gist of several reliable sources into one's own opinion is another reason for this to be reverted and discarded. Perhaps you'd be happier at the Conservapedia or writing your own blog, as this tabloid gibberish has no place here. Tarc ( talk) 15:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the good faith, but I'm actually more of Clinton supporter, which makes you a presumptuous cock.

As for only some obscure right-wingers believing the guys philandered, damnest thing, "You can't trust him, he's got weak morals and ethics – and he's done a heck of a good job.", this article must be run by right-wingers. This article says 68% of people think Clinton will be remembered for personal scandals. What I want to do is add a sentence to this sexual misconduct section saying those two facts are true because of sex scandals and that comedians have a goldmine with it and suddenly I'm advocating "tabloid gibberish" of a right-wing minority that should be on Conservapedia? The BBC is some obscure fringe conservative publication?? Are you even reading what I'm writing?-- Loodog ( talk) 15:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe my cock has any part in this discussion, but I'm tickled pink to know that its on your mind. What you are advocating is not really what those links were saying, and even if they were, the inclusion would still be rather dubious. WP:ASF; :Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves" is something you may wish to brush up on as well. As much as you may think that it is, Bill Clinton's sexual antics are not the defining characteristic of his career, any more than George Bush's former alcoholism is of his. Tarc ( talk) 16:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, except that we're already admitting that it was a large part by inclusion of those public opinion polls above. Unless, you're suggesting we remove those too. If they're reporting about such a minor facet of his presidency.-- Loodog ( talk) 16:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that being a womaniser is not notable. If you or I were a womaniser, we would not be elegable for a Wikipedia article based on that fact alone. Clinton may be a womaniser, but of itself that is no more important to the article than his favourite colour. Where it is important is how it affected his career, and in particular his presidency. So for instance to write that revelations of a relationship with woman X affected his ability to pass legislation Y is encyclopaedic, to just include a list of accusations of sexual relations is tabloid. Likewise public opinion polls, in themselves they a just political ephemera, it is the effect they may have had on his presidency that is important. And by the way this does nothing to improve important parts of this article, for instance the awful treatment of his career as Governor of Arkansas. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 21:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

((::Waves white flag of apparent inability to communicate his points::)-- Loodog ( talk) 21:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Loodog, why are you once again trying to reinsert the same material [7] and [8] that was previously rejected handily by several editors? Did you think that simply lying low for a month would somehow be more successful? Tarc ( talk) 23:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but thanks for assuming good faith. I assumed things here were settled. This is sourced and not "fringe media".-- Loodog ( talk) 23:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Would some images of Bill with different women be appropriate for this article? User5802 ( talk) 07:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Time magazine cover seems appropriate to put either in the Lewinsky scandal section or the Public image - sexual misconduct section.-- Loodog ( talk) 15:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it would not be appropriate at all. And even if it were, neither image would qualify for use due to strict WP:NONFREE guidelines. Magazine covers can generally only be used to illustrate an article of the magazine itself. The latter pic would be copyrighted by whatever new/media organization originally took it. Tarc ( talk) 15:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If there were a free image of Monica, appearing in a situation that has obvious context to Clinton's scandal or impeachment, it would seem appropriate to me.-- Loodog ( talk) 15:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand something here. He was not really impeached, he was voted to be impeached and it had to have been a 2/3 vote of yes for the impeachment to happan. They got more people to vote "for" the impeachment However they did not get the required 2/3 votes "for" the impeachment. He also finished his 2nd term. Does this really constitute as an impeachment?-- 68.39.96.223 ( talk) 04:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The impeachment was the trial itself, which certainly did happen. They got enough vote to pass the resolution. Both charges were defeated and so his impeachment did not result in being removed from office.-- Loodog ( talk) 04:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Can it really be that this article makes no mention of Clinton and the draft and the ROTC business and all that? In some spot checking, I didn't see an older version of the article that covered this either. This is a standard topic to treat in biographies of political figures who came of age in the Vietnam War. The Joe Biden, Rudy Giuliani, and Dick Cheney articles each devote a paragraph to it, for example. And the Clinton case is more notable and generated more controversy (during his 1992 presidential run) than any of these. The Maraniss biography is a good source; this Snopes entry also gives a rundown of it. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine. I'd suggest the "Education" be made a sub-section of "Early Life", with a "Draft Status" section created on the same footing. Tarc ( talk) 15:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Per Talk:Bill Clinton/GA1, this article was supposed to have been delisted as GA (which I agree with, for all the reasons stated and more), yet it's still showing as GA above. What action wasn't taken? Wasted Time R ( talk) 16:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'd have changed the status, but I don't think I have permission to do so since I'm not an administrator. -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 04:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is sweepingly simplistic in its assessment of the opposition to homosexuals in the military.

• and from the right (who opposed any effort to allow homosexuals to serve).

It wasn't only "the right" that was opposed to allow homosexuals "to serve" The issue was to serve openly, and it was the majority of the military AND the majority of Americans who were opposed, that's why Clinton paid a price for the attempt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.66.95 ( talk) 08:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the section about the 92 election needs more. It fails to mention him actually announcing his run, or selecting Gore as his running mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.175.36.16 ( talk) 23:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I really think the whole Clinton-Gingrich fued should be talked about in the article. Newt Gingrich isn't mentioned once in the section about Clinton's presidency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.175.36.16 ( talk) 00:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The header should be fixed. Furthermore, it should be noted that, save a 17-day period in January 2001, President Clinton's wife was not a Senator while he was President. DougOfDoom ^talk 23:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Under President Clinton's leadership, almost 6 million new jobs were created in the first two years of his Administration -- an average of 250,000 new jobs every month.

In 1994, the economy had the lowest combination of unemployment and inflation in 25 years.

As part of the 1993 Economic Plan, President Clinton cut taxes on 15 million low-income families and made tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses, while raising taxes on just 1.2 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers.

President Clinton signed into law the largest deficit reduction plan in history, resulting in over $600 billion in deficit reduction. The deficit is going down for 3 years in a row for the first time since Harry Truman was president.

The President signed into law the Brady Bill, which imposes a five-day waiting period on handgun purchases so that background checks can be done to help keep handguns away from criminals.

The President's Crime Bill will put 100,000 new police officers on the street. More than 1,200 communities have already received grants to hire 27,000 additional officers.

The Crime Bill also punishes criminals by expanding the number of offenses eligible for the death penalty and implementing the "three-strikes-and-you're-out" provision.

And, the Bill banned the manufacture of 19 specific types of deadly assault weapons, while simultaneously protecting hunters' rights by exempting over 650 hunting rifles.

President Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act. The law, which covers over 42 million Americans, offers workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-guaranteed leave for child birth, adoption, or personal or family illness.

President Clinton expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit to cut the taxes of 15 million working families with incomes of $27,000 or less.

President Clinton granted waivers to 25 states -- half the nation -- providing for comprehensive welfare reform demonstrations.

President Clinton ordered the U.S. Justice Department to conduct the first-ever crackdown on deadbeat parents who refuse to accept financial responsibility for their own children.

Signed an Executive Order cracking down on federal employees who owe child support.

Cutting Bureaucracy President Clinton has already cut the federal bureaucracy by more than 100,000 positions. Under the recommendations of the National Performance Review, the federal bureaucracy will be reduced by 272,000 -- its lowest level since the Kennedy Administration.

And, he reduced the White House staff by 25 percent.

Under the President's Direct Student Loan program, students can borrow money directly from the government at a lower interest rate and with many flexible repayment options, including the option to repay with a percentage of their after-graduation salary. Taxpayers will save at least $4.3 billion over five years.

In 1994, over 20,000 AmeriCorps members tutored students, immunized children, reclaimed urban parks, and patrolled neighborhoods. In return, they earned $4,725 per year of service towards college tuition or job training.

President Clinton signed into law Goals 2000, a national standard of excellence for our public schools. Already, 41 states and territories have received federal grants to raise academic standards and improve schools.

President Clinton's Safe and Drug Free Schools and Community Act and the Safe Schools Act provide funding to schools to fight violence and drug abuse. Schools can use up to 25 percent of their funds to purchase metal detectors, develop safe zones, and hire school security personnel.

The President's School-to-Work program provides venture capital to spark a nationwide system for moving America's young people from high school to a job with a future. In 1994, all states received planning funds for their school-to-work program.

Charter School legislation signed by President Clinton encourages states and localities to set up public school choice.

Under President Clinton, the EPA launched its "Common Sense Initiative" to make health protection cheaper and smarter by focusing on results rather than one-size-fits-all regulations.

The President's Northwest Forest Plan is putting communities in the Northwest back to work, while conserving ancient forests.

After decades of conflict, the Clinton Administration negotiated a consensus plan to protect California's most valuable natural resource -- its water. The San Francisco and Delta estuary supplies dr inking water to two-thirds of the state's people, provides irrigation for 45 percent of the nation's fruits and vegetables, and sustains 300 aquatic species

President Clinton hosted the signing of the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles in September, 1993, and the signing of the Israeli-Jordan Washington Principles in July, 1994 -- historic agreements between the leaders of Israel and her Arab neighbors to settle differences by peaceful means.

To enhance European security and stability, the Clinton Administration proposed the Partnership for Peace program, offering former Soviet republics and Central/East European states closer ties with NATO. Already, 22 nations have signed on, since NATO's adoption of the program in January, 1994.

As of May, 1994, nuclear missiles in Russia and the United States are no longer targeted against any country. And, as a result of other Clinton Administration efforts, the Ukraine is ahead of schedule in reaching the goal of transferring 1,500 nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantlement.

This needs to be discussed. Neverfades ( talk) 10:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Um... I don't see any of this in the article.(?) I take it you mean that these are all true statements that should be mentioned then? I agree much of this can be included, but keep in mind we want a relatively neutral depiction of the man, with appropriate weight on what's mentioned. We also can't include every possible detail. If you can filter through these accomplishments into what you believe is the most notable, we could easily include those.-- Loodog ( talk) 15:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference #75 viz. "Bill Clinton Disbarment to End" is bad. -- 72.70.24.131 ( talk) 13:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

After reading the article, I have some suggestions for its editing. I have not made these changes but would like some opinions-

1/ The subsection of 'legislative agenda' is only given under the first term (1993- 1997) and not the second (1997- 2001). For balance of presentation it might be useful to have this as a subheading to the second term. For example, the Iraq Liberation Act is described under 'military and foreign events' when his might be better shown under 'legislative agenda'.

2/ The subsection 'military and foreign events' is only given under the second term of the presidency and not the first. I think this subsection could also be mirrored under the first term for balance of presentation and to clarify notable military and foreign events during this time. At the moment, Gothic Serpent (1993) is mentioned under the second term, not the first, so is incorrectly placed.

3/ The Rwandan genocide (1993) is not mentioned or linked to anywhere in the article. I think the article should include this, given the significance of the event itself as a foreign policy concern of the US and UN at the time, the enduring controversy since, and president Clinton's own remarks of apology and visit to Rwanda. This could be written under military and foreign events of the first term.

4/ Redirections to main articles could be given for the US/NATO campaign in Bosnia and Camp David Summit as these are only summarised. Dss2mtm ( talk) 06:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

5/ I am concerned that the section entitled "Attempted capture of Osama Bin Laden" does not accurately represent the intense controversy regarding this issue. There is no final historical consensus about the nature of these incidents, though the 9/11 Commission rejects the Sudanese claims of having made an offer to Clinton to turn over Bin Laden. Elfatih Erwa, the Sudanese Defense Minister at the time, claims to have made such an offer. The Clinton administration, including then-Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clark, deny this. Much of the controversy seems to stem from a secret meeting between Erwa and CIA agents in Virginia. I encourage the authors of this article to detail the nature of the ambiguities regarding these incidents so as not to give the impression of factual clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.54.213 ( talk • contribs)

6/ 5/ The TED prize of 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TED_(conference)#TED_Prize was awarded to him. I think it might merit some small mention.. After all, of thousands of intellectuals he was awarded the prize to further projects for humanity. Cs302b ( talk) 08:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The comma after "third-youngest president" should be a semicolon. I'd fix it myself, but the article's protected. 131.216.103.242 ( talk) 09:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it, thanks!  :-) Rebbing ( talk) 16:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about a Family of Bill Clinton article, similar to that of Family of Barack Obama? His family is not independently notable, but enough information exists to make a decent one. Thoughts? See Roger Clinton, Sr. and Virginia Clinton Kelley as possible redirects into new article.-- TM 17:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I think we should keep a separate article. -- Pgecaj ( talk) 22:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that the only reason he had a "balanced" budget is that he borrowed from social security? Right now that article introducotry paragraph seems POV in his favor. Many believe that his programs offered short-term relief. My only source for this is one of my professors at school, but I'm someone's published it somewhere. Emperor001 ( talk) 22:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"The troopers were discovered to have been paid for their stories." This sentence seems irrelevant to the topic and somewhat leading the reader to the conclusion that the story itself was false. Certainly the word "discovered" in this context is pov (synonymous with "caught"),I think. Mr.grantevans2 ( talk) 14:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The name Berger appears only once in the article, on the Osama bin Laden section: "coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S.". There's no explanation about who berger is. How about adding "U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger..."? Thanks Kvsh5 ( talk) 14:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The UK news agencies are reporting that President Clinton was sexually forward to Claire Sweeney. The former Brookside star who played Roxy in Chicago was approached by him in Russia and he made reference to his "middle leg". This is big big news, and a real scandal in the United Kingdom. Can this be added to the Bill article? see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1168987/You-dirty-dog-What-Claire-Sweeney-U-S-President-Bill-Clintons-chat-lines.html ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.12.212 ( talk) 14:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it either "big big news" or "a real scandal" outside such places as the "TV & Showbiz" section of a tabloid? As far as I can see, it's in neither the Guardian nor the Torygraph. -- Hoary ( talk) 14:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion at WP:RS/N concluded that it was so-so at best. You might want to try and find a second source before going too far. Padillah ( talk) 15:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

She told the story herself on Channel 5 talk show. It was reported by Sky News, Loose Women, This Morning, BBC Northern Ireland, Radio Humberside, The Staffordshire Post. What else is needed? This is a major newsstory. Clinton was married when he made those comments! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.12.212 ( talk) 15:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You say that this is "big big news". Big big news makes it to real newspapers. Guardian, Independent, Times, Telegraph, Financial Times -- which of them writes it up, and where? (Or this perhaps little little news?) -- Hoary ( talk) 16:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not going to be in the FT! Claire Sweeny is a major British star, appearing in Brookside and Chicago to name a few. How dare Clinton make sexual advances to a British household name in this way, and why cover it up? It is all over the papers here and everybody is talking about it. I was talking to my friend Michelle a few hours ago and my sister even txt'd me about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.12.212 ( talk) 16:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's all over the papers, then provide a link to an article in one of those papers that's actually credible. And then some day it may make it to this Wikipedia article (which doesn't purport to be a newspaper article). In the meantime of course you're welcome to keep right on talking about it with your friends. Hoary ( talk) 16:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This page needs to be updated, as January 1, 2009 has already past, and he has already been inducted as chairman of the National Constitution Center. 76.90.40.185 ( talk) 03:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Clinton was actually disbarred by the supreme court. The main page is not clear on this fact. [9] Aane0007 ( talk) 16:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Your source is severely outdated. As part of the deal with the Independent Counsel, Clinton resigned from the bar. Tarc ( talk) 18:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

He resigned from his state bar which prompted the supreme court action and he may have resigned after he was disbarred, but nonetheless he was disbarred and his page should reflect this. Aane0007 ( talk) 13:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No he was not disbarred, as I stated above. He resigned as part of an agreement with the IC, which made the disbarment procedure effectively moot, analogous to Nixon resigning and avoiding formal impeachment. Tarc ( talk) 14:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No he was disbarred. Here are the sources. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,35470,00.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/clinton-disbarred-by-supreme-court-629920.html He was then given 40 days to contest the disbarment. He then resigned within that 40 days. That doesn't change the fact he was disbarred. Disbarred means the court removed his ability to argue in front of them. After the fact he was disbarred, he then resigned. If we are going to compare it to Nixon, it would be like if Nixon was impeached in the house then found guilty in the senate only to agree to resign after the fact. This is the same thing clinton did with the supreme court, he was disbarred, then resigned after the fact. At the state level he resigned before he was disbarred, but that is not the case in his supreme court case at the federal level. Aane0007 ( talk) 17:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "That doesn't change the fact he was disbarred"....um, yea, it kinda does. Your sources were both written before the deal to resign, and thus are dated and irrelevant. The resignation precluded disbarment, as much as you hate to accept it, that is the reality of what happened. Time to move on. Tarc ( talk) 17:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Clinton was disbarred from the supreme court on Oct. 1. 2001. Here is my source. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,35470,00.html Clinton then resigned from the supreme court on Nov 10 2001. Here is my source. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/10/us/national-briefing-washington-clinton-wants-to-resign-from-supreme-court-bar.html Please note how the disbarment source predates the source in which Clinton resigns. So the order of events is Clinton is disbarred, then over a month later he resigns. This does not mean he was not disbarred. This means after he was disbarred then he resigned. Please be more polite in your discussion and include your sources from now on. I have provided many sources from the Associated Press which clearly read that Clinton was disbarred. Claiming that he later resigned does not change the fact he was disbarred. Disbarment doesn't magically go away if you resign after the fact. It is a fact the supreme court disbarred Clinton. Aane0007 ( talk) 17:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The SC order was not an immediate disbarment; it was an order that it would happen within 40 days if not contested. The resignation rendered that moot. Your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments are getting tiresome. Tarc ( talk) 18:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You have not provided one source for anything you have claimed. I have provided many sources. If your claim is the supreme court disbarred Clinton and then later the resignation of clinton rendered it moot, then that should be included in Clinton's site. It should read something like this. "Oct 1 2001 Supreme Court Disbars Clinton and stays order for 40 days." "Nov 10 2001 Clinton resigns rendering order moot." Why are you adverse to putting in the fact the supreme court order Clinton disbarred? Why have you not provided a source for your claim that the disbarment was stayed 40 days and then rendered moot after resignation? Why are you hostile? You first claimed the Independent Council made a deal with Clinton and that is why his disbarment was moot. You were wrong. The independent council did not make any deals in Clinton's supreme court case. You have now claimed the disbarment was stayed 40 days. Please provide a source for this new claim. Aane0007 ( talk) 18:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

According to this source http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/clinton-disbarred-by-supreme-court-629920.html it states "The Supreme Court followed its standard rules in the Clinton case, which include suspending Clinton from practice in the court and giving him 40 day to show why he should not be permanently disbarred." This means the order was not suspended for 40 days. He had 40 days to contest the order and argue why it should not be permanent. He was in fact suspended or disbarred on the 1st of Oct 2001. He then resigned the next month. Aane0007 ( talk) 18:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

From what little I know of lawyers, other than lots of jokes about lawyers, is that they are "barred" (as opposed to "prohibited") to be able to work as a lawyer in one specific state, or more, and that getting permission to argue in front of the supreme court is a completely separate permission. Is it possible that the Supreme Court was only barring (prohibiting) him from arguing cases in front of the Supreme Court by "disbarring" him? 199.125.109.88 ( talk) 12:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what they did. You must be approved to argue in each state and in front of the supreme court. You can can be disbarred from all of these individually. The supreme court said Clinton was not allowed to argue cases in front of them anymore, or they disbarred him. Aane0007 ( talk) 15:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Bill Clinton caught groping ‘Nanny’ star? -- Like I Care 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This story has the photo. Doesn't look like much to me. Wasted Time R ( talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

We learn in the third paragraph that "Clinton left office with an approval rating at 66%, the highest end of office rating of any president since World War II.[12]" Okay, that checks out with the link.

But then we read further down that he ended "his presidential career with a 65% approval rating, the highest end-of-term approval rating of any President since Dwight D. Eisenhower.[68]" The difference between 65% and 66% isn't much to quibble about (probably reflect two different pollsters), but the footnote takes you to this link ( http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_clintonlegacy010117.html), which shows Clinton with a higher end-of-presidency job approval rating than Eisenhower or any other Post WWII president.

I suggest the second line be changed to, "...The highest end-of-term approval rating of any President since World War II.[68]" Or it might be excised completely as redundant.-- 5th Beatle ( talk) 13:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

We can asume his raitings where between 65%-70% as some websites shoot in that area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.130.69 ( talk) 14:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we expand the Oslo accords paragraph in Military and foreign events? It was one of his final major acts as President during his last term so it makes sense to include a little more than 5 sentences. Clinton considered the Palestinian leadership to be at fault for the treaty breakdown, which was later documented in his autobiography My Life. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 01:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

please add this info in appropriate section [10] 79.101.174.192 ( talk) 10:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This article says Clinton was acquitted by the U.S. Senate by a "by a largely partisan vote." I think this is misleading. Given Clinton's very high approval ratings at the time, it's clear that members of the Senate were simplying following the desires of their constituents, the American people (who were strongly opposed to impeachment in the first place). Hilariously, this article doesn't even point out that the whole impeachment witchhunt itself was partisan in the extreme. I also find it hilarious how, nowhere in the Wikipedia article "Bush v. Gore" is the term "partisan" used (even though that decision was, of course, blatantly partisan). As always, Wikipedia is nothing more than a shill for the GOP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.120.41 ( talk) 18:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"Partisan vote" is used here in the technical sense that political scientists use: a vote that highly correlates with party identification (in this case, party of the members of the Senate). Bush v. Gore was less partisan in the political science sense, in that 7 of the 9 justices were appointed by Republicans but in the key part of the decision, only 5 voted on Bush's side. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Does the first security incident (plane wreck) belong in this article or should it be in a different article (white house or something along those lines). It seems like it was more like a general attack on the building than an assassination attempt, etc. Jared555 ( talk) 06:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Under this heading it states "From a poll conducted of the American people in December 1999, Clinton was among eighteen included in Gallup's List of Widely Admired People of the 20th century." However, if the associated link is followed to the actual list of the 18 people, Clinton is absent. Therefore, either the article showing the list is incorrect or the reference to it is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.216.93.2 ( talk) 21:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The recent news of President Clinton being inducted into Phi Beta Sigma, a historically Black fraternity, should be mentioned here. [11]-- Jguinnjr ( talk) 04:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Bill Clinton has just been in the news for supporting same-sex marriage. The first former U.S. president to do so (as Carter and Obama only really advocates civil unions). Surely this is noteworthy for the article but where does it belong? I don't think it deserves a new section but it doesn't really fit under any of the others as they've been given headings that are too specific. -- Jkaharper ( talk) 20:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

President Clinton failed to graduate from Oxford with any sort of degree according to the New York times (article here). Perhaps someone with an autoconfirmed account can edit the entry to reflect this fact. JWithing ( talk) 15:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm on it.-- Loodog ( talk) 16:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! JWithing ( talk) 20:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we PLEASE discuss the changes being made to the article, instead of just reverting them out. The sub-section about draft status is very small, neutrally-worded (and titled), and is not a BLP problem. It's also quite notable, and has been well-covered in numerous reliable sources. Why is there such resistance to it? In a similar the case, the TANG issue at GWB is dealt with in almost the exact way I've dealt with the draft issue here. Unitanode 19:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can remember (knowing full-well original research has no merit), it was a non-issue during the '92 election and there was no mention in '96. And I don't, as you recall, remember people criticizing his military actions because of this issue. The only people who fixated on it were arch-conservatives like Limbaugh, and it's no more notable than the birther movement is to Obama's article; It's about as important as Cheney's draft-dodging.

In regard to the GHW article, there is (I believe) one, maybe two sentences of criticism regarding his going AWOL, the rest is dedicated to what is actually known about his military service. With regard to Clinton, since he had no service record, an entire section certainly gives undue weight to an issue that had little-to-no electoral effect and has zero historical value. DKqwerty ( talk) 20:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This was actually a compromise version I worked up in user space (see above). It's very neutrally-worded, quite short, and is a sub-section, not an "entire section" as you put it. As the 1992 election was my first as a voter, I remember it well. The draft issue was an issue -- perhaps a bit smaller than what GWB's TANG issue became, but an issue nonetheless. Does this subsection need to go into all the minute details of the accusations that were made by veteran's groups and conservatives? No. Does it merit a small place in this article (which it currently occupies). I think so, given that it's both well-sourced and a notable event in his life. Unitanode 20:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Clinton's draft history was an issue in the 1992 election. I haven't looked at this proposed content in detail, but the length of it is okay, however it should not be a separate subsection. Regardless of what's done in the GWB article, most of our articles do not make draft history an explicit subsection. In addition to the examples I gave above, Dick Cheney is another one that just integrates the content into the appropriate chronological early life or education section. That's the way of doing it without giving it undue weight. Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Def. doesn't deserve its own section any more than his pot usage or saxophone lessons.-- Loodog ( talk) 23:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Clinton's draft history does not rate its own section, but it should certainly be covered in the article, as it was definitely an issue in the 1992 campaign. The paragraph as proposed by UNITANODE looks good to me. Plazak ( talk) 00:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have any real problem with it not having a sub-section in "Early life", I was simply modeling it after how the TANG issue (which I viewed as similar) was handled in the GWB article. I just think it needs addressed somewhere, and that felt the most natural, since that's the time it happened in his life. Sub-sectioning it there made sense to me, but if there's not consensus for that, but consensus for the material as drafted, that works for me as well. Unitanode 00:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It was addressed an an election issue in 1992 in the gen. election article.-- Loodog ( talk) 00:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And it belongs here as well, since it is also a part of his biographical history. Existing somewhere else does not preclude it from existing here. Unitanode 03:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Per the above discussion, and apparent support for my reworking of the material, I've placed it, integrated into the biographical portion where it fits best. Unitanode 04:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the discussion of Bill Clinton's draft avoidance, after it was removed (apparently with the justification that the sources were inadequate). I have replaced it, with the addition of more neutral sources carrying the same information. The draft avoidance issue was one of the more significant parts of his public image, especially among conservatives, and certainly bears mention at some point in this article. I came to this page initially to get the clear story on it, and found the facts completely absent, which is why I added them. If you disagree with the factual basis of the paragraph, please discuss here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreadengineer ( talk • contribs) 01:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a notable, lasting part of his public image and gives the issue undue weight with an entire section. If it merits a mention, it would a sentence or two added chronologically within the details of his life, not as a lone section of criticism. For reference, see how the Texas Air National Guard issue is handled in the George W. Bush article. DKqwerty ( talk) 02:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I moved it to the section of the article about the 1992 election, since that's when the issue first appeared. Justified or not, it was definitely a larger part of Clinton's public image than the National Guard combat-avoidance was for Bush's public image, and therefore certainly deserves at least a few sentences somewhere in the article. A search for news articles and opinion pieces regarding the issue will confirm that it stayed with him; any time Clinton took any action related to the military, his critics brought it up. We can talk about the length of the section if you want; I tried to roughly match the length of the "Popularity Among African-Americans" paragraph, since I judged the two things to be of about equal weight, based on frequency of mention in the press at the time. Dreadengineer ( talk) 03:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, no one cares, other than right-wing pundits with axes to grind. It is of no relevance to a biographical article on Bill Clinton. Tarc ( talk) 04:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not a "right-wing pundit" and I stated above the reasons why it belongs. He was often criticized as a "draft dodger" etc., and the Wikipedia article on him should have the actual facts regarding that part of his life, or Wikipedia isn't doing its job as a useful reference. Dreadengineer ( talk) 05:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Total undue weight, maybe worth a line in his early life section. No consensus to add this material. -- Leivick ( talk) 05:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, when you say this, either you include Dreadengineer within the group of right-wing pundits with axes to grind or you don't. If you do, this could be interpreted as a personal attack. If you don't, then you already have one exception to your generalization, for it seems that non-axe-grinding-pundit Dreadengineer does care. ¶ One of the sources cited in this frequently-deleted paragraph is this chatty passage (Google Books) within Partners in Power, by Roger Morris. Granted that WP is not a reliable source (and that the article on Morris is itself utterly unsourced), it hardly suggests that Morris is a wingnut of the right. Here's an article by wingnut (or not) Jonathan Freedland, published in the notoriously revanchist (or not) British rag the Guardian, from which I quote: That 1992 election alone was so chock-full of scandal and turnarounds, such a vintage campaign, that it's hard to forget any of it - whether it was Gennifer with a G, the Vietnam draft-dodging letter, written by Clinton while a student at Oxford, or Hillary on 60 Minutes insisting she had been no Tammy Wynette standing by her man, and that if you didn't like her husband, then, "Heck, don't vote for him." ¶ Now, it may very well be that this non-issue was blown up by AM radio blimps for the angry-Joe-Six-Pack demographic, and certainly it was nowhere near as much fun as the on-again, off-again military "service" of Clinton's much-missed successor as Potus, but it strikes me that there's something there that's worth, if not a paragraph in the article, then at least a reasoned deletion. -- Hoary ( talk) 05:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

How men who came of age in that era dealt with Vietnam and the draft is always biographically relevant; it was that important to everyone at the time. This should be described in a few sentences in the right chronological place in the early life/education section, just as it is in the Rudy Giuliani, Joe Biden, Mitt Romney, and many other articles. Then a brief mention that it became one of the personal issues that Clinton was attacked on can be made in the section that deals with the 1992 campaign. It should not be a separate section in either place, as that would be undue weight, but it definitely has to be covered in his biography. Wasted Time R ( talk) 10:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Then work in a brief mention to the early life section or something similar. A large section riddled with decades-old "OMG draft dodger!" campaign rhetoric is not going to fly. Tarc ( talk) 13:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Actual text for discussion

Here is the text that Dread has added and Tarc has removed:

During the 1992 election campaign, Clinton faced accusations that he had used undue political influence (from the office of a U.S. Senator who employed Clinton as an aide) as well as misleading statements to avoid being drafted during the Vietnam War. ^[1] Col. Eugene Holmes, a U.S. Army officer who knew Clinton and had been closely involved in his case, issued a notarized statement in 1992 stating, "...I was informed by the draft board that it was of interest to Senator Fullbright's office that Bill Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar, should be admitted to the ROTC program... I believe that he purposely deceived me, using the possibility of joining the ROTC as a ploy to work with the draft board to delay his induction and get a new draft classification." ^{[2] [3]} Clinton did not in fact join the ROTC program, but the temporary ROTC status prevented him from being drafted. While Clinton's actions did not break the law, their disclosure briefly lowered his approval ratings during the 1992 primaries ^[4] and continued to be a source of criticism from both conservatives and Vietnam veterans' groups. ^{[5] [6] [7]}

References

Discussion

• Added for discussion. Unitanode 14:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• My proposal is that the section under discussion be added in toto as a subsection of the "Early life" section. This would be substantially similar to the way the TANG issue is dealt with in the GWB article. The text could then, of course, be tweaked as needed. Unitanode 14:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• I have added a version of the text to the "Early life" section. The version I added -- and the revisions I made to Dread's text -- can be found here. Additionally, I reworked the opening sections of the article, merging "Education" into "Early life" as a subsection, and creating a "Childhood" subsection as well. I hope these revisions will be an acceptable compromise between Tarc and Dread's positions. Unitanode 15:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

  I'm OK with that revision. - Dreadengineer ( talk) 17:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

According to WP: Undue "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Moreover: So the question remains about the prominence of this episode in Clinton's life. As this happened early on at the beginning of his life, I tend to think that no more than one or two lines are necessary. -- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 04:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE has nothing to do with how "early on" something happened in his life. The material in question was relevant to the 1992 presidential election, and is presented neutrally, and without an overfocus on it. This more than satisfies UNDUE, and to cut it to "one or two lines" would render it completely unintelligible. Unitanode 04:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

House Republican Policy Committee Chairman Christopher Cox, R-Calif., said the study conducted by his panel found that under the Clinton administration, North Korea became the "largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid in the Asia-Pacific region," according to the committee's report as quoted by CNSNews.com. see: http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/cliBntMon.htm

96.48.174.88 ( talk) 19:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know when President Clinton ever blamed Arafat for ending the Camp David affairs. On the contrary, he merely claims that the US acted as Israel's lawyer during the accords. It is also known that the the accords ended when Sharon left the negotiating table and proceeded to march up the Haram al-Sharif/ Temple Mount with 40 settlers, thereby triggering the 2nd intifada. The 2 website sources provided (Palestine facts and the Jewish virtual library) are agenda driven websites that cannot be cited for factual information. And on what page does Clinton blame Arafat in his memoirs, I don't recall any statement to that effect in the book. If these facts are not properly cited from a credible news source, I propose to correct them, because they are clearly POV. 04:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClockSpire ( talk • contribs)

I would just like to point out the fact that Francisco Martin Duran fired an SKS semi-automatic rifle at the White House. It's not a weapon capable of fully-automatic fire, and is therefore NOT an assault rifle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.176.16 ( talk) 09:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

should we nominate the artical for GA. -- Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

One glance at this and I can tell you it wouldn't pass. The references need to be put into a standardized format:

{{cite web|url=http://www.cocacola.com|title=Issue of the Day: This guy|publisher=company|accessdate=2009-09-21}}

which comes out like this:

"Issue of the Day: This guy". company. Retrieved 2009-09-21.

-- Louiedog ( talk) 22:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the article isn't close to being GA. And to be honest your hacking away at the article isn't helping it improve. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I am rather concerned about the large number of unconstructive edits being made over the past several days by "Pedro thy master." In particular, there have been a number of edits that have removed single sentences, or parts of sentences, that have left the resultant paragraphs as confusing and incomplete. For example, in the section on President Clinton's health, the section now begins with what was previously the middle of the paragraph, explaining that it was determined that Bill Clinton did not suffer a coronary infarction, but not explaining what led to his being checked for that in the first place. There are tons of little edits like this that serve no purpose other than hacking up the article and that I think need to be reverted, but I do not have the time to go through and do them all one-by-one. What does everyone else think? I think these recent edits by Pedro thy master need to be reverted in total. Ithizar ( talk) 04:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that many of these edits are problematic. I think Pedro thy master is well-intentioned, but lacks the language and editorial skills and subject matter expertise to make large-scale changes to a major, high-profile article like this. Some of his more recent edits were in response to peer review comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bill Clinton/archive3. Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)