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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
I have looked at the artical and i think thease should help:
Well i think with this it could become a better artical. And if your planing to make Bill Clinton GA or FA, send me a messege and i well asist in the artical, I would seariously take some ideas from Obama and Reagen articals, as Ombama is a FA and a current President and Reagen is a FA and was a Former president. -- Pedro J. the rookie 02:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I do see your point but going around many presidential articals and many have personal life, and if not a personal life a marrige and children section. Can we take the section Electoral history See also that way it is in the artical. And i see your point about my spelling, but mainly it is understandable it good to me and i check my spelling when i right an artical. -- Pedro J. the rookie 13:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay your right in the personal life, he has not have much personal life, but tell me what you think about my other suggestions. -- Pedro J. the rookie 15:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay but the Electoral history dose not work in like a section, maybe we can put it in his political carrer and it is a probably a good idea to take out the See also section. Would it be a good idea to make his Foreign policy. -- Pedro J. the rookie 23:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
A reference link that no longer works should be updated or removed:
^ "Obama asked, “Do you think Bill Clinton was our first black president?”". Fox News. Retrieved November 11, 2008. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.6.202.147 (
talk) 08:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
"Sometime in my sixteenth year I decided I wanted to be in public life as an elected official. I loved music and thought I could be very good, but I knew I would never be John Coltrane or Stan Getz. I was interested in medicine and thought I could be a fine doctor, but I knew I would never be Michael DeBakey. But I knew I could be great in public service.[15]" Should be third-person. -- 71.255.76.249 ( talk) 16:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The section Bill_Clinton#Military_and_foreign_events is missing all mention of Clinton's role in resolving the Northern Ireland conflict (Chelsea wrote her term paper on it). Surely it deserves mention, especially because "gratitude" for his role in the conflict is mentioned later on in this article.-- Louiedog ( talk) 18:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a login so I can't fix this myself: in the Sexual Misconduct Claims part of the article there is a mention that Clinton had a sexual relationship from 1959 to 1992. As Clinton was 13 in 1959 the date is clearly wrong, and in the source (reference number 120) there is a statement by the woman that the relationship commenced in the mid-1970s. Can someone fix this please? 220.253.222.113 ( talk) 00:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Why was the following item deleted, as it was well cited and explains the antipathy of Carter towards Clinton?
Clinton believed that Jimmy Carter cost him the gubernatorial election in 1980 and that “the peanut farmer was unfit for high office.“ [1] tuco_bad 23:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the whole sound bite about Carter isn't fit for office has little bearing on Clinton's loss and just seems like petty gossip. And nowhere in the book does Clinton blame his loss on Carter's loss. And as Wasted Time R points out, a politician commenting on loss is a rather unreliable narrator.-- Louiedog ( talk) 22:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The 1st paragraph in the 1992 campaign section has 2 sentences which appear to contradict each other:
How could he finish 2nd and lead by a large percentage? LarryJeff ( talk) 19:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
1. Link in reference 13 (news article about Clinton appointment as U.N. Special Envoy to Haiti) does not go to the correct article. I looked up other articles on the topic, but I can't edit the page. For example, you could substitute this one:
Bill Clinton to be UN Haiti envoy BBC News, May 19, 2009. 75.61.67.234 ( talk) 09:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
1993 world trade centre attacks should be repoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.160.247 ( talk) 04:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I will add that in 99.8.105.153 ( talk) 21:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article should be titled "William Jefferson Clinton" instead of "Bill Clinton". Yes, President Clinton is usually referred to as "Bill Clinton" in day-to-day parlance and his books have the author name "Bill Clinton." However, he is also often introduced at speaking events as "President William Jefferson Clinton" and that's the name under which he was sworn into as the president. It just seems more proper for a reference work to file President Clinton under his legal/official name instead of his nickname. What do people think?
Like Truman and Carter, Clinton had ancestors that fought to the Confederate States of America. Check it out here:
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mscivilw/bios.html
I move it be included in the article. It it noteworthy, as it the enduring association with Southern Democrats and the Confederacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martan32 ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The only comment that address Clinton's budget record in the entire article is:
I find it a little odd that his performance on the budget is mentioned nowhere else beyond the introduction, and the comment itself is uncited. I have also been unable to find a reputable source which verifies this (specifically the amount cited of $559 billion).
Also, I have found that in general in wikipedia, and specifically in Bill Clinton's articles, there is people are conflating the terms "public debt" (debt held by the public) and "national debt" (public debt + intragovernmental holdings), which is an important distinction because his budget surplus is with regards to public debt rather than the national debt.
For now I would like to see a citation needed tag added to the claim, please. Apocryphal Libertarian ( talk) 20:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Apocryphal's comments. The National Debt (Public Dept + Intergovernmental Holdings) went up every year during the Clinton administration. Please see the following link for that data: OMB Historical TablesIf debt went up, there can be no real surplus. Rlantzy2112 ( talk) 17:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Why is the fact of Clinton's first speech being removed from Clinton's presidential history? tuco_bad 00:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten ( talk • contribs)
Perhaps user would be more amenable to a listing of exactly what it would take to change people's minds. What you need is a mainstream reliable source that states (a) "Clinton raised taxes against his campaign promise, and (b) presents it in such a way that this fact is a notable aspect of Clinton's early Presidency.-- Louiedog ( talk) 18:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
He's just been taken to a New York hospital. Does anyone know what it is? Because so far the net says nothing, only the TV news. 24.189.90.68 ( talk) 21:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
It appears he had an angioplasty. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is 128KB, which is more than a little on the long side. So I've copied the Post-Presidency section into Post-presidency of Bill Clinton. If you guys think it's OK, I'll summary-style that section. If not, propose deletion of the article -- Purplebackpack89 ( talk) 03:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
NNDB claims there was an assassination attempt on him in 1994. Do they have the year wrong, or was there really an attempt to kill him during that year? Lkjhgfdsa 0 ( talk) 18:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The Early life and career section of this article says half-brother Roger Clinton, Jr. intervened to stop Roger Clinton, Sr.'s violence. Jr.'s and Sr.'s articles say it was Bill who physically intervened. Which is correct? Lkjhgfdsa 0 ( talk) 20:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
This topic of discussion was created by socks and participated in socks. Thanks, archived. — Dæ dαlus Contribs 22:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The page states that Paula Jones was able to sucessfully prevail when she filed for an appeal, and she did not. She was still in the process of presenting her appeal when the settlement was reached; hence she had not prevailed, meaning she predominated and won, [2] in her lawsuit, because a court settlement has no victor and is a compromise. The settlement also mainly went to her attorneys and not her The page also points out that Susan Webber Wright was one of Clinton's students at the university of Arkansas after it points out that she dismissed the case. Nobody has investigated Susan Webber Wright in a public fashion to suggest that she dismissed the case because she was a student of Clinton's and favored him. In fact, she is also a Republican. [3] The article is misleading, unneutral and needs to be rightfully changed. 204.169.161.1 ( talk) 21:03, —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC). I agree Dr real ( talk) 22:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
It might be mentioned that Strobe Talbott was the President's roommate during his time at Oxford, a relationship that became political when the President appointed Talbott to the State Department as Deputy Secretary of State. This is discussed in My Life as well as the suicide of his other roommate over the draft. Clinton says in his book that the suicide impacted his feelings about the war and his choices surrounding the draft. jkv ( talk) 12:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It says: In 2007, he released, Giving: How Each of Us Can Change the World which became a bestseller and gandered positive reviews.[130]
Should this be changed to 'garnered' positive reviews, or am I just crazy?
In the "First Term" section, just above the "Travelgate" subsection is the following sentance: "That same year Hillary Clinton shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act through Congress and two years later Rodham Clinton succeeded in helping pass the Foster Care Independence Act. Bill Clinton supported both bills as well, and signed both of them into law." Should that be Hillary Clinton instead of Rodham Clinton? -- 152.131.9.132 ( talk) 18:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Should the health section mention his lung surgery in March 2005? ( 92.11.254.235 ( talk) 12:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC))
This topic of discussion was created by a banned sockpuppet. Tarc ( talk) 13:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article needs a recent picture. The only one in the article is an awful picture (2008 campaign). Those who hate the man should not insist on an ugly picture. Willie Sutton Bank President ( talk) 21:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC) |
-- William Saturn ( talk) 22:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Someone placed a tag on this article saying that it's too long. That seemed like an appropriate tag, so I took a few fluffy sentences out of the lead. Also, I have never seen a two-column list in the middle of a Wikipedia biography. There's an identical list at Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton#Legislation_and_programs. So, I removed the list here, and inserted a sentence pointing to that other article. If legislation and/or programs are especially notable, they can be described in the rest of this article (many of them already are).
This article still needs some trimming (it's still at 122 KB), and I think this can be done in the section on post-presidency; it's huge, especially compared to the sections on each of his two terms. And many of the subsections in the post-presidency section are already too short to justify subheadings. Probably the best way to organize the post-presidency section would be chronologically. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The lede currently says: "Later he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, but was subsequently acquitted by the U.S. Senate.[8][9] During his presidency he was accused of adultery, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape."
My only part in this was to insert "perjury" (because that was one of the two charges during the impeachmant). The second quoted sentence seems a bit excessive to me. For example, I don't think the sexual assault and rape accusations were very widely publicized (compared, for example, to the adultery and sexual harassment accusations), and that lack of publicity may be related to the inability to confirm that these events happened.
But if we just delete the last sentence, then the first sentence would be kind of weird, and lacking any context. The impeachment charges stemmed from a lawsuit for sexual harassment by Paula Jones. That lawsuit was ultimately settled out of court for upwards of $800,000 and the perjury and/or obstruction of justice led to suspension of Clinton's law license in Araknsas, and his resignation from the US Supreme Court nar (which was about to disbar him). So, there should be a way to concisely give some context to the first quoted sentence above, but without going as far as the second quoted sentence above. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It is very misleading to indicate that Bill Clinton presided over the longest economic expansion without indicating that that same expansion began under the presidency of George H.W. Bush.-- Drrll ( talk) 21:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Joker, you have removed any context from the sentence, resulting in misleading readers to believe that the economic expansion was created by Clinton, despite two years of expansion before Clinton took office. Drrll ( talk) 15:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This section of the article should be removed. The only two citations are an amazon.com page for the book making these cliams and an article citing the book making these claims. Sounds like someone is trying to sell a book. 85.81.126.123 ( talk) 13:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I've made a noticeboard inquiry here. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Should there be something on here identifying clinton as the 1st black president? heres a reference. http://dir.salon.com/books/int/2002/02/20/clinton/index.html Iwanttoeditthissh ( talk) 15:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
“ | Clinton drew strong support from the African American community and made improving race relations a major theme of his presidency.[113] In 1998, Nobel Prize-winning author Toni Morrison in The New Yorker called Clinton "the first Black president", saying, "Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas", and comparing Clinton's sex life, scrutinized despite his career accomplishments, to the stereotyping and double standards that blacks typically endure.[114]
In 2008, Morrison's sentiments were raised anew as Barack Obama, who would later become the country's first African-American President, ran for the presidency. After endorsing Obama, Morrison distanced herself from her 1998 remark about Clinton, saying that it was misunderstood. She noted that she has "no idea what his real instincts are, in terms of race" and said she was only describing the way he was being treated during the impeachment trial as an equivalent to a poor black person living in the ghetto.[115] Obama himself, when asked in a Democratic debate about Morrison's declaration of Clinton as "black", replied that Clinton had an enormous "affinity" with the black community, but joked he would need to see Clinton's dancing ability before judging him to be black.[116] |
” |
-- Louiedog ( talk) 01:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I noted one editor has been changing all instances of "health care" to "healthcare". From what I can tell, two separate words ("health care") seems to be the preferred usage (see here & here). And changing it in the names of internal links breaks the links, so I have changed it back to "health care". — JPMcGrath ( talk) 02:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
In the "White House FBI Files Controversy" section, the article says: Craig Livingstone, head of the White House Office of Personnel Security, improperly requested, and received from the FBI, background report files [...]. It then goes on to state that the Ray report stated "there was no substantial and credible evidence that any senior White House official was involved" in seeking the files. If Ray stated there is no evidence, and we present no sourced evidence, then why do we state that Livingstone improperly sought the files? I don't know enough about this case to confidently edit the section, so perhaps someone could help rectify this contradiction. Blackworm ( talk) 14:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
This article says he was born in 1946 and changed his name at age 14, which would be 1960 or 1961.
The articles about Roger Clinton, Sr., (his stepfather) and Virginia Clinton Kelley (his mother) both say that he changed his name in 1962, meaning either that he was 15 or 16 or that he was born in 1944 or 1945.
I remember seeing his mother saying (on television) that he changed his name at 18, which contradicts this article, but I saw that only once and in 1992, so I could be wrong. 71.109.159.242 ( talk) 04:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Paula Jones only filed for an appeal and did not prevail. In fact, the Appeals Court was still investigating the case by the time the settlement had been reached. Also, while Susan Webber Wright was a student of Clinton's, it is not worth mentioning. Wright also issued rulings that weren't 100% favorable to Clinton when she presided over the Whitewater investigation, like when she sentenced Susan McDougal to the maximum sentence of eighteen months in prison for contempt of court when she refused to answer three questions about whether or not Clinton lied in his testimony; as mentioned in her Wikipedia article. 98.240.254.121 ( talk) 03:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
There was a discussion here at the BLP Noticeboard about changing "scandal" to "sex scandal" in the lede. The consensus was to treat the Clarence Thomas lede and this one the same, and therefore include the word "sex" in neither lede. However, because the Clarence Thomas lede now does include "sex," it seems like this lede may as well too. Please keep in mind WP:Spade.
If anyone disagrees, please give more than a two-word explanation. Thanks. 108.18.185.163 ( talk) 03:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
please change
becoming the first Democrat since Franklin Roosevelt to win presidential reelection
to
becoming the first Democratic incumbent since Lyndon Johnson to be elected to a second term and the first Democrat since Franklin Roosevelt to be elected President more than once
because
the term "presidential reelection" is not correct, because
1. The word "reelection" is sometimes used to refer to any election of a current President to another term, including Presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Lyndon Johnson who were not elected to their original term. By this definition, Clinton would be the first Democrat since Lyndon Johnson, not the first since Franklin Roosevelt.
2. When it refers to a President of the U.S., the term is "Presidential", with a capital P, not presidential
71.109.159.30 ( talk) 16:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Surely Clinton "is" something rather than "was". Yes, his primary fame is routed in his former president-ship, but I thought "was" is reserved for deceased biographies...? Any suggestions how this can be changed? Keith1234 ( talk) 16:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how to edit this but I'm pretty sure this is wrong:
In office January 9, 1979 – January 19, 1981
2 years as governor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.23.116 ( talk • contribs) 03:55, 11 September 2010
Bill's work to modify the Community Reinvestment Act which led to the creation of the Ninja loans (and hence the GFC) really needs to be documented here. 124.169.16.180 ( talk) 04:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)J
The article twice says Pres. Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III. It cites a page at whitehouse.gov, which indeed says "III". But I've spent the last eighteen years (until now) with the understanding that he was born the fourth, not the third. In fact, the childhood photo of him at Wikipedia calls him the fourth. Could the White House webpage be wrong? Or could everyone else have been wrong for almost two decades? What's the story? President Lethe ( talk) 07:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
It still doesn't look entirely decisive for me. Then I also consider that, even if his original birth certificate leans one way, the way his family thought of his name in those early years may lean the other. Anyway, this helps satisfy my curiosity; thanks for pointing me to those discussions, Tarc. — President Lethe ( talk) 22:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm no less confused than anyone else here. His father's article also seems to be undecided. How can one officially verify whether it is III or IV? Thesomeone987 ( talk) 21:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Thesomeone987
This topic-the EEG Expressor and Instant EEG can be performed in the medical center,but I am not in a medical center,so I can not follow up the topic is performed on schedule or not? By the way,do you still care the politice? I make a plan for the membership of the U.N. to the Republic Of China,not just confirmed in the computer website,or just talk with Obama?What's the psychologic condition of the members of the U.N.? How can I make them to support my Plan? The [annunal fee] for the organization though so many countries do not pay the annual fee, [A war?], the Korea is not tuff enough to create a war,So my plane is perfect! A troop as a branch of the goverment outside the U.N.and decision should be maken in the U.N.! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.33.23.93 ( talk) 17:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Could a reference be added:
Bill Clinton has been acknowledged by Mr Jason Gale as being the inspiration for the London Lifestyle Awards —Preceding unsigned comment added by PLyon-Lee ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a suggestion that applies to all living presidents, but I thought to post it hear as I was noticing it at this moment. Shouldn't the line "was the # President of the United States" be "is the # President of the United States". I would think this to be the case for living presidents, as they are still recognized as Mr. President, even after their term has been served. I may be wrong, but I thought this was customary, and the present tense "is" would more accurately reflect this custom. Chris.P.Dunning ( talk) 22:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Article says.. "The Congressional Budget Office reported a budget surplus in 2000, the last full year of Clinton's presidency."
It would be fair to add after that, that even though it may have been reported as being so, that it is incorrect as Dept. of the Treasury website shows that there never was a surplus, just a lower deficit. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
(I looked that website up, and it takes a while to load, but it is an official government website accessible/linked to from http://www.ustreas.gov/ after you select "Bureaus" then "Bureau of public debt" followed by "US public debt to the penny.")
Suggest adding this information on, change to.. "The Congressional Budget Office inaccurately reported a budget surplus in 2000, the last full year of Clinton's presidency when in fact there was still (and always has been) a deficit." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.177.102 ( talk • contribs)
I see where you are coming from but the way it is reported is misleading as the countries national debt has not been "not a debt" at any point within the last few decades. Intragovernmental holdings (IE debt) is not accounted for in the statement that is usually made in regards to said surplus, as is the case in the original statement. Intragovernmenal debt is in this instance, made up of social security surplus used to pay for national debt (via the purchase of US government securities) which social security is legally required to do. So in essence the money has been borrowed from one pocket to be placed in another, covering the debt up and making it appear as a surplus when in fact it is not and in reality increments the national debt once said debts interests are accounted for. Good source of information with its own sources inside: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.177.102 ( talk) 17:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I merely posted it since it has sources of its own that are relevant, such as the link to the treasury departments logs of public debt for the past few years. The source may not be reliable, but the information contained in it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.177.102 ( talk) 19:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Not trying to use common knowledge as a source, since that site I linked last is basically common knowledge (you cannot pay down debt by taking on more debt from another source.) The US Department of Treasury is http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np 71.100.177.102 ( talk) 19:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I apologize, I just realized I said "A good source..etc.." above. More accurately I should have said "A reference I just found and could use to explain what I mean." Still relevant so please disregard that it says "a good source." Don't mean that to be linked in Wikipedia article page itself either. 71.100.177.102 ( talk) 20:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
bill clinton is a hoe!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.14.191 ( talk) 23:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
bill clinton is very important 2 your country —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.14.191 ( talk) 23:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I have begun work on the Clinton article. I am working off of a new peer review that i requested. The work is nearly done, and I believe that with your help, it can be finished even quicker. I have marked off what I have done on the peer review. The review can be found on the article.-- Iankap99 ( talk) 21:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by "The references needs some pruning"?
"Too many references, I would try and keep it under 100 if possible" This seems absurd, the Obama article has 300.
Thanks for the read through and suggested improvements, would you mind if I cross them off here when I finish them?-- Iankap99 ( talk) 21:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
You missed this last time around. Thanks.
I noticed this comment regarding the original 1992 campaign "By election time, the economy was souring and Bush saw his approval rating plummet to just slightly over 40%." While this statement regarding Bush's approval rating being low is true, the US economy was in the state of recovery in November 1992. In the 9 months prior to election day the economy had been growing above 4%, about a million jobs had been added, and unemployment had been declining (albeit slowly). Of course, the economic downturn of 1990-91 was largely responsible for Bush's decline in popularity, however, the way the article is worded it makes you think the economy had just entered recession around election day when such was not the case.-- FrankieG123 ( talk) 18:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Fareed Zakaria of Foreign Affairs wrote for New York Times that Milosevic who rules "an impoverished country that has not attacked its neighbors — is no Adolf Hitler. He is not even Saddam Hussein." (clinton said for Milosevic that he is Hitler.)
what the croatians call an occupied territory is a land which the serbs have held for more than 3 centuries. most of the same is true for the serb land in bosnia. US has punished one side in this war and unfairly. - foreign affairs sep/oct 1994
188.2.169.209 ( talk) 00:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
ps.
Michael Parenti has some good citations on the topic from establised media. There is also an informative video
here.
188.2.169.209 (
talk) 00:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Although Clinton and his mother are related, they are still seperate people. Both pages contain enough individual information about their subject to remain seperate. Such a merger would be pointless and confusing to those looking up information on either person. KosmischeSynth ( talk) 16:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I am removing Bill Clinton from the category "American adoptees". The article refers to William Jefferson Blythe, Jr. as Clinton's father and Roger Clinton as his stepfather. Our article on Roger Clinton also refers to Bill Clinton as Roger's stepson. Bill Clinton's White House biography also refers to William Jefferson Blythe, Jr. as his father and makes no reference to an adoption by Roger Clinton. -- Allen ( talk) 17:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
In Agency and the Hill: The CIA's Relationship with Congress (2008), L. Britt Snider writes:
A search for "Britt Snider" in Wikipedia turns up a few interesting pages where he's cited, mostly involving the CIA, over which he was inspector general at one point in his career. Is there enough information/credibility here to edit the article?— Biosketch ( talk) 21:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
F U
Bill Clinton are vegan?
EGroup (
talk) 08:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
In the last paragraph (which is a single sentence) of the section entitled "Attempted capture of Osama bin Laden," reference is made to "the warning" for which no referent exists. The reference is only made clear by following the citation at the end of the sentence. I recommend beginning that paragraph with:
"Also in 1996, the State Department warned the Clinton Administration that Afghanistan would provide bin Laden a safe haven from which to pursue his plan to expand radical Islam after he was expelled from Sudan."
This sentence will put the existence sentence into context. Ted Sweetser ( talk) 03:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The article mentioned Clinton's nickname, 'Slick Willie', but I remember him being called 'The Teflon Kid' after the Lewinsky affair. Does anyone know of a good reference for this? I did a quick web search but didn't come up with much. 94.72.235.210 ( talk) 19:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Without an appropriate explanation, User:Orangemarlin has twice removed two words from the lede of the article. This changed
"Later he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with a scandal involving sex with a White House intern, but was subsequently acquitted by the U.S. Senate..."
to read
"Later he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with a scandal involving a White House intern, but was subsequently acquitted by the U.S. Senate..."
This was a revert of my text, which I feel clarifies the subject of the scandal in a helpful and succinct manner.
His first edit summary was
Reverted to revision 434304094 by Jim Michael: NPOV
-- though I had asked for a discussion on the talk page regarding that, none came; instead, Orangemarlin's second edit summary was
Longstanding NPOV version. Per WP:BRD convince a consensus on talk for change. Stop edit warring..
Point one: WP:NPOV basically states that all information should be appropriately weighed and reported from an objective point of view, and I don't see why a two-word reference to the facts of the scandal should violate that criterion.
Point two: WP:CENSOR leads me to believe that a discussion of the sexual nature of the Lewinsky scandal is in no way inappropriate, and WP:CONSENSUS states that "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable." (Nor, for that matter, do I actually see any past consensus for excluding the wording in question.)
In essence, I would like to see reasons why "involving sex with an intern" is inappropriate wording, and to be informed as to exactly how it (allegedly) violates the spirit / letter of WP:NPOV. If this objection is not adequately clarified, I will revert back. Zloyvolsheb ( talk) 19:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, there are two problems:
-- Louiedog ( talk) 21:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Done. Please feel free to remove inappropriate section heading's and not revert future Good Faith Edits.
-- QuAz GaA 22:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
A discussion on the Barack Obama page about whether noting Obama is the first President born in the second half of the 20th century is relevant (it's not), I thought the parallel would be Bill Clinton, the first President born after WW2. I think, like the note that Jimmy Carter was the first President born in a hospital, the WW2 note ought to appear here in the lede. Thoughts? Oneinatrillion ( talk) 18:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
This edit removed the notable fact that he got $100,000 per speech. The Clintons made around $100,000,000 from books and speeches and other sources. He earned $31,000,000 between 2001-2005 alone:
{{
cite news}}
: Missing pipe in: |title=
(
help) --
Javaweb (
talk) 19:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)JavawebIt's true, but it's not notable in a GA biography. Clinton has had many, many jobs earning many different amounts of money, but not all of them deserve mention. As the GA reviewer said, it was obviously placed where it was intended to show a link between Bill Clinton raising money and Hillary Clinton's political aspirations, but I couldn't find any reliable sources that claim a link. As such, we don't mention it here any more than Clinton's salary as president. – Quadell ( talk) 21:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't have any such intentions. Indeed this reference does not imply that either: "[2006], ... Clinton earned $9 million to $10 million on the lecture circuit....352 speeches -- but only about 20 percent were for personal income...[80%] given for no fee or for donations to the William J. Clinton Foundation, the nonprofit group he founded to pursue causes such as the fight against AIDS." Thanks for pointing out the other articles and the concerns during the GA review. -- Javaweb ( talk) 00:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
I would like to report a factual error in this article. The error is that it says that WJ Clinton's presidential term began at the end of the cold war. Clinton served as POTUS after the cold war had already ended. This can be confirmed in the wiki article (as well as many, many other reliable sources as well). I request that this article remove and correct this erroneous entry in order to be accurate and correct (an important and very valid Wikipedia motivation). Clinton's term began in 1993, this is two years after the end of the cold war. The George H.W. Bush BLP should also be edited for the factual entry that GHWB served as POTUS (seeing that this is important and was included in WJC BLP) at the time that the cold war ended. The fact that Clinton had absolutely NOTHING to do with the cold war may or may not be added for clarity on this very important point in American history. Thank you and have a great day! 98.64.75.179 ( talk) 16:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I just mean that is a factual error. Why even say anything about the cold war at all? I suppose it could say he was the first president elected after the cold war was over or had concluded (1991). It made me look at GHWB BLP and it says absolutely nothing about the cold war at all. So, I mean to say that Clinton did enough without associating him with something that his presidency had nothing to do with. GHWB BLP wouldn't state anything about the Cuban missile crisis,watergate, or the Falkland war, so why is the cold reference even in this BLP? Also, the Clinton Foundation has many causes with which it contributes support and aid to, perhaps, it should be expanded in that regard as wellrather than just stating aids support (good cause, but not the only important one). Thanks.... Why is this article even locked down from being edited by others? 65.8.150.136 ( talk) 17:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:Statue of Bill Clinton in Kosovo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC) |
I believe that it bears mentioning that even though a Federal Budget surplus was recorded by the CBO, the National Debt rose each year President Clinton held office. While this increase is not unique to Clinton, it is a fact (uncontested by OMB historical figures, CBO, and Treasury) that it happened during his presidency. Not only does it demonstrate that the accounting methods for reporting budget surpluses and deficits are inaccurate, it shows that even this President, widely regarded as a fiscal conservative, was unable to avoid increasing the National Debt of the United States.
As far as the sources I cited being primary or secondary, I consider the links to the Treasury secondary. They report the numbers that are recorded in a balance statement or accounting workbook (primary) on a website (secondary).
Also, if still considered primary, I would cite the following statement from the policy on primary sources located on the Wikipedia No Original Research project page:
In this case, I think the Treasury website is very straightforward. It shows the total end of fiscal year debt for each year, grouped into decades. Two links were required to show years ending in 1990s and then for year 2000. Rlantzy2112 ( talk) 02:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The article states "Clinton was the first President to pardon a death-row inmate since the federal death penalty was reintroduced in 1988.[30]". I think it should say that "President Clinton issued a clemency order to a death-row inmate, commuting his sentence from the death penalty to life in prison." This would not imply that a murderer was set free. This site here lists the executive order in question: http://www.justice.gov/pardon/clinton_comm.htm with the innmate named as David Ronald Chandler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.112.118 ( talk) 18:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Under the presidential campaign, it states: The election gave Democrats full control of the United States Congress.[3] It was the first time this had occurred since Democrats controlled the 95th United States Congress during the Jimmy Carter presidency in the late 1970s.[42]
This is completely untrue, as even an examination of the linked websites will verify. For example, the 96th and 100th Congresses were Democrat controlled, as were the 101st and 102nd. Democrats maintained control for the 103rd Congress, when Clinton got elected. In fact, the more notable event was during Clinton's re-election, where Congress turned Republican for the first time since the 83rd Congress, in the 1950s. Someone please correct the article. 24.126.30.61 ( talk) 01:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Clinton was member of the fraternal young mens organization, served as Master Councilor (Presiding Officer) of his Chapter and was selected for the DeMolay Hall of Famein 1988 when he was still Governor of Arkansas. Alienlenny ( talk) 21:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)alienlenny
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The persondata structure at the bottom of the markup lists the wrong birth date for Bill Clinton. Here is the current persondata:
{{Persondata |NAME=Clinton, Bill |ALTERNATIVE NAMES=Clinton, William Jefferson (full name) |SHORT DESCRIPTION=42nd President of the United States (1993–2001) |DATE OF BIRTH=August 8, 1946 |PLACE OF BIRTH=Hope, Arkansas |DATE OF DEATH= |PLACE OF DEATH= }}
Here is what it should be: {{Persondata |NAME=Clinton, Bill |ALTERNATIVE NAMES=Clinton, William Jefferson (full name) |SHORT DESCRIPTION=42nd President of the United States (1993–2001) |DATE OF BIRTH=August 19, 1946 |PLACE OF BIRTH=Hope, Arkansas |DATE OF DEATH= |PLACE OF DEATH= }}
128.30.44.116 ( talk) 21:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
It says many times than Clinton "has been described as a New Democrat". The impression is given the media coined the phrase, but in reality it was his 1992 campaign that thought it up. Prehaps the wording should be changed.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 00:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
*The
WP:CAPTION is ungrammatical, suggesting that he ran for election the year he received his degree, which is almost certainly untrue.
{{
Personality rights}}
should probably on his civilian years photos before and after his public service years.
Comments on other reviews:
Overall, I am concerned that this biography is one where nominators who feel fondly of the subject are merely looking for a quick "It looks O.K." response when a lot of work needs to be done. This article will not meet the ever-increasing WP:WIAGA standards without substantial effort.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 12:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I have now completely overhauled the references. A few egregiously bad refs have been redone. All broken link have been repaired or replaced. Missing date or author information has been supplied where needed, and access dates have been supplied or updated as needed. – Quadell ( talk) 14:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The following sentence appears in the article:
'To weaken Saddam Hussein's grip of power, Clinton signed H.R. 4655 into law on October 31, 1998, which instituted a policy of "regime change" against Iraq, though it explicitly stated it did not speak to the use of American military forces.'
This sentence is inaccurate. The text of H.R. 4655 does in fact speak to the use of American military forces, under Sec. 4(a)(2), which reads:
'(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations. '(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.139.251 ( talk) 22:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Rewritten to clarify. No direct intervention by US military forces. Assistance (articles, training), not troops on the ground. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 21:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Bill Clinton added 6 million jobs thats 250,000 a month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.201.160 ( talk) 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The Article should include an "Urban legend" or "Common misconception" Section. This new Section should mention, among other things, that Clinton did not murder Vince Foster, despite popular belief. (Vince Foster actually committed suicide if anyone's curious.) The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 19:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The intro to this entry merely states that, "Later, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in a scandal involving a White House intern, but was acquitted by the U.S. Senate and served his complete term of office." Yet, don't you think the Impeachment of a President is a more serious event than this (especially since it has only been successfully pursued twice in the history of the United States?)
Impeachment is a serious event for any President: It has only been attempted three times, and was aborted only once (Nixon resigned rather than go through the ordeal.) Thus, the fact that this opening entry omits the fact that Bill Clinton is only the second out of 44 Presidents successfully impeached can be seen as an overt attempt by partisan supporters to both whitewash and minimize the importance of this event in American history.
You should at least mention the fact that Bill Clinton's Impeachment was only the second time in American History that such an event has taken place. IMHO Thanks 122.26.58.230 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC).
It was my understanding that Bill Clinton was impeached, just not removed from office. Not sure about the acquital by the US Senate. The sentance that was handed down was shunning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixion123 ( talk • contribs) 05:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article source for the statement "He has also expressed support for gay marriage" is not specifically about Bill Clinton and does not give any quotes or information that would indicate the statement is true. 184.6.104.141 ( talk) 06:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
The category and info box say he is Baptist. Are there any sources for this? The reason I ask is because he attended Catholic school and his wife's article states that she is United Methodist. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 20:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second term passage, it states that Clinton was the 2nd president impeached, after Andrew Johnson. This must be corrected since Richard Nixon was impeached in the 70s due to the Watergate scandal. This is common knowledge, and MUST be fixed.
Boisebound78 ( talk) 15:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
If that chart is to be believed, we had 4 years of Ford budgets, followed by 3 years of Carter, 9 years of Reagan, 3 years of Bush Sr., and 9 years of Clinton. That's not right. William Jockusch ( talk) 05:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the public image section on this page is almost exactly the same as the lower section on the page Public Image of Bill Clinton. I think we should make this section drastically smaller or add what the other page says to this article for that page is not that long. Jibajabba ( talk) 12:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Seeing Tarc's violent reaction, I realize this probably won't be easy, but if Wikipedia truly wants to be an unbiased encyclopedia his impeachment needs to be in the opening paragraph. If the Nixon article opened with mention of his young age becoming VP but no mention of his resignation, it would be wrong.
The opening paragraph for Bill Clinton reports his young age (third youngest), him being the first baby-boomer president, but no mention of him being the second president impeached. No seriously unbiased editor can say that his impeachment should not be in the opening paragraph. Rodchen ( talk) 00:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
You can see the history to see the violent reaction. And Clinton being 46 and the third youngest man to become president was a defining moment??? Him being the first baby boomer president was a defining moment? Of course it should be included in the opening paragraph. If Nixon's opening paragraph discussed China, war in Vietnam and Russian relations but nothing of watergate or his resignation, wouldn't that seem strange to you???? Rodchen ( talk) 10:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
One hundred years from now people will remember Clinton as being the second president who was impeached, just like most Andrew Johnson is basically remembered for only 2 things: succeeding Lincoln and his impeachment. I will try to rewrite the opening lead. I had wanted to avoid ruffling too many feathers, but if a rewrite is needed I will give it a try. Rodchen ( talk) 04:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
I have looked at the artical and i think thease should help:
Well i think with this it could become a better artical. And if your planing to make Bill Clinton GA or FA, send me a messege and i well asist in the artical, I would seariously take some ideas from Obama and Reagen articals, as Ombama is a FA and a current President and Reagen is a FA and was a Former president. -- Pedro J. the rookie 02:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I do see your point but going around many presidential articals and many have personal life, and if not a personal life a marrige and children section. Can we take the section Electoral history See also that way it is in the artical. And i see your point about my spelling, but mainly it is understandable it good to me and i check my spelling when i right an artical. -- Pedro J. the rookie 13:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay your right in the personal life, he has not have much personal life, but tell me what you think about my other suggestions. -- Pedro J. the rookie 15:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay but the Electoral history dose not work in like a section, maybe we can put it in his political carrer and it is a probably a good idea to take out the See also section. Would it be a good idea to make his Foreign policy. -- Pedro J. the rookie 23:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
A reference link that no longer works should be updated or removed:
^ "Obama asked, “Do you think Bill Clinton was our first black president?”". Fox News. Retrieved November 11, 2008. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.6.202.147 (
talk) 08:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
"Sometime in my sixteenth year I decided I wanted to be in public life as an elected official. I loved music and thought I could be very good, but I knew I would never be John Coltrane or Stan Getz. I was interested in medicine and thought I could be a fine doctor, but I knew I would never be Michael DeBakey. But I knew I could be great in public service.[15]" Should be third-person. -- 71.255.76.249 ( talk) 16:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The section Bill_Clinton#Military_and_foreign_events is missing all mention of Clinton's role in resolving the Northern Ireland conflict (Chelsea wrote her term paper on it). Surely it deserves mention, especially because "gratitude" for his role in the conflict is mentioned later on in this article.-- Louiedog ( talk) 18:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a login so I can't fix this myself: in the Sexual Misconduct Claims part of the article there is a mention that Clinton had a sexual relationship from 1959 to 1992. As Clinton was 13 in 1959 the date is clearly wrong, and in the source (reference number 120) there is a statement by the woman that the relationship commenced in the mid-1970s. Can someone fix this please? 220.253.222.113 ( talk) 00:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Why was the following item deleted, as it was well cited and explains the antipathy of Carter towards Clinton?
Clinton believed that Jimmy Carter cost him the gubernatorial election in 1980 and that “the peanut farmer was unfit for high office.“ [1] tuco_bad 23:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the whole sound bite about Carter isn't fit for office has little bearing on Clinton's loss and just seems like petty gossip. And nowhere in the book does Clinton blame his loss on Carter's loss. And as Wasted Time R points out, a politician commenting on loss is a rather unreliable narrator.-- Louiedog ( talk) 22:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The 1st paragraph in the 1992 campaign section has 2 sentences which appear to contradict each other:
How could he finish 2nd and lead by a large percentage? LarryJeff ( talk) 19:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
1. Link in reference 13 (news article about Clinton appointment as U.N. Special Envoy to Haiti) does not go to the correct article. I looked up other articles on the topic, but I can't edit the page. For example, you could substitute this one:
Bill Clinton to be UN Haiti envoy BBC News, May 19, 2009. 75.61.67.234 ( talk) 09:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
1993 world trade centre attacks should be repoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.160.247 ( talk) 04:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I will add that in 99.8.105.153 ( talk) 21:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article should be titled "William Jefferson Clinton" instead of "Bill Clinton". Yes, President Clinton is usually referred to as "Bill Clinton" in day-to-day parlance and his books have the author name "Bill Clinton." However, he is also often introduced at speaking events as "President William Jefferson Clinton" and that's the name under which he was sworn into as the president. It just seems more proper for a reference work to file President Clinton under his legal/official name instead of his nickname. What do people think?
Like Truman and Carter, Clinton had ancestors that fought to the Confederate States of America. Check it out here:
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mscivilw/bios.html
I move it be included in the article. It it noteworthy, as it the enduring association with Southern Democrats and the Confederacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martan32 ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The only comment that address Clinton's budget record in the entire article is:
I find it a little odd that his performance on the budget is mentioned nowhere else beyond the introduction, and the comment itself is uncited. I have also been unable to find a reputable source which verifies this (specifically the amount cited of $559 billion).
Also, I have found that in general in wikipedia, and specifically in Bill Clinton's articles, there is people are conflating the terms "public debt" (debt held by the public) and "national debt" (public debt + intragovernmental holdings), which is an important distinction because his budget surplus is with regards to public debt rather than the national debt.
For now I would like to see a citation needed tag added to the claim, please. Apocryphal Libertarian ( talk) 20:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Apocryphal's comments. The National Debt (Public Dept + Intergovernmental Holdings) went up every year during the Clinton administration. Please see the following link for that data: OMB Historical TablesIf debt went up, there can be no real surplus. Rlantzy2112 ( talk) 17:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Why is the fact of Clinton's first speech being removed from Clinton's presidential history? tuco_bad 00:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten ( talk • contribs)
Perhaps user would be more amenable to a listing of exactly what it would take to change people's minds. What you need is a mainstream reliable source that states (a) "Clinton raised taxes against his campaign promise, and (b) presents it in such a way that this fact is a notable aspect of Clinton's early Presidency.-- Louiedog ( talk) 18:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
He's just been taken to a New York hospital. Does anyone know what it is? Because so far the net says nothing, only the TV news. 24.189.90.68 ( talk) 21:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
It appears he had an angioplasty. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is 128KB, which is more than a little on the long side. So I've copied the Post-Presidency section into Post-presidency of Bill Clinton. If you guys think it's OK, I'll summary-style that section. If not, propose deletion of the article -- Purplebackpack89 ( talk) 03:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
NNDB claims there was an assassination attempt on him in 1994. Do they have the year wrong, or was there really an attempt to kill him during that year? Lkjhgfdsa 0 ( talk) 18:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The Early life and career section of this article says half-brother Roger Clinton, Jr. intervened to stop Roger Clinton, Sr.'s violence. Jr.'s and Sr.'s articles say it was Bill who physically intervened. Which is correct? Lkjhgfdsa 0 ( talk) 20:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
This topic of discussion was created by socks and participated in socks. Thanks, archived. — Dæ dαlus Contribs 22:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The page states that Paula Jones was able to sucessfully prevail when she filed for an appeal, and she did not. She was still in the process of presenting her appeal when the settlement was reached; hence she had not prevailed, meaning she predominated and won, [2] in her lawsuit, because a court settlement has no victor and is a compromise. The settlement also mainly went to her attorneys and not her The page also points out that Susan Webber Wright was one of Clinton's students at the university of Arkansas after it points out that she dismissed the case. Nobody has investigated Susan Webber Wright in a public fashion to suggest that she dismissed the case because she was a student of Clinton's and favored him. In fact, she is also a Republican. [3] The article is misleading, unneutral and needs to be rightfully changed. 204.169.161.1 ( talk) 21:03, —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC). I agree Dr real ( talk) 22:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
It might be mentioned that Strobe Talbott was the President's roommate during his time at Oxford, a relationship that became political when the President appointed Talbott to the State Department as Deputy Secretary of State. This is discussed in My Life as well as the suicide of his other roommate over the draft. Clinton says in his book that the suicide impacted his feelings about the war and his choices surrounding the draft. jkv ( talk) 12:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It says: In 2007, he released, Giving: How Each of Us Can Change the World which became a bestseller and gandered positive reviews.[130]
Should this be changed to 'garnered' positive reviews, or am I just crazy?
In the "First Term" section, just above the "Travelgate" subsection is the following sentance: "That same year Hillary Clinton shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act through Congress and two years later Rodham Clinton succeeded in helping pass the Foster Care Independence Act. Bill Clinton supported both bills as well, and signed both of them into law." Should that be Hillary Clinton instead of Rodham Clinton? -- 152.131.9.132 ( talk) 18:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Should the health section mention his lung surgery in March 2005? ( 92.11.254.235 ( talk) 12:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC))
This topic of discussion was created by a banned sockpuppet. Tarc ( talk) 13:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article needs a recent picture. The only one in the article is an awful picture (2008 campaign). Those who hate the man should not insist on an ugly picture. Willie Sutton Bank President ( talk) 21:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC) |
-- William Saturn ( talk) 22:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Someone placed a tag on this article saying that it's too long. That seemed like an appropriate tag, so I took a few fluffy sentences out of the lead. Also, I have never seen a two-column list in the middle of a Wikipedia biography. There's an identical list at Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton#Legislation_and_programs. So, I removed the list here, and inserted a sentence pointing to that other article. If legislation and/or programs are especially notable, they can be described in the rest of this article (many of them already are).
This article still needs some trimming (it's still at 122 KB), and I think this can be done in the section on post-presidency; it's huge, especially compared to the sections on each of his two terms. And many of the subsections in the post-presidency section are already too short to justify subheadings. Probably the best way to organize the post-presidency section would be chronologically. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The lede currently says: "Later he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, but was subsequently acquitted by the U.S. Senate.[8][9] During his presidency he was accused of adultery, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape."
My only part in this was to insert "perjury" (because that was one of the two charges during the impeachmant). The second quoted sentence seems a bit excessive to me. For example, I don't think the sexual assault and rape accusations were very widely publicized (compared, for example, to the adultery and sexual harassment accusations), and that lack of publicity may be related to the inability to confirm that these events happened.
But if we just delete the last sentence, then the first sentence would be kind of weird, and lacking any context. The impeachment charges stemmed from a lawsuit for sexual harassment by Paula Jones. That lawsuit was ultimately settled out of court for upwards of $800,000 and the perjury and/or obstruction of justice led to suspension of Clinton's law license in Araknsas, and his resignation from the US Supreme Court nar (which was about to disbar him). So, there should be a way to concisely give some context to the first quoted sentence above, but without going as far as the second quoted sentence above. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It is very misleading to indicate that Bill Clinton presided over the longest economic expansion without indicating that that same expansion began under the presidency of George H.W. Bush.-- Drrll ( talk) 21:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Joker, you have removed any context from the sentence, resulting in misleading readers to believe that the economic expansion was created by Clinton, despite two years of expansion before Clinton took office. Drrll ( talk) 15:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This section of the article should be removed. The only two citations are an amazon.com page for the book making these cliams and an article citing the book making these claims. Sounds like someone is trying to sell a book. 85.81.126.123 ( talk) 13:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I've made a noticeboard inquiry here. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Should there be something on here identifying clinton as the 1st black president? heres a reference. http://dir.salon.com/books/int/2002/02/20/clinton/index.html Iwanttoeditthissh ( talk) 15:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
“ | Clinton drew strong support from the African American community and made improving race relations a major theme of his presidency.[113] In 1998, Nobel Prize-winning author Toni Morrison in The New Yorker called Clinton "the first Black president", saying, "Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas", and comparing Clinton's sex life, scrutinized despite his career accomplishments, to the stereotyping and double standards that blacks typically endure.[114]
In 2008, Morrison's sentiments were raised anew as Barack Obama, who would later become the country's first African-American President, ran for the presidency. After endorsing Obama, Morrison distanced herself from her 1998 remark about Clinton, saying that it was misunderstood. She noted that she has "no idea what his real instincts are, in terms of race" and said she was only describing the way he was being treated during the impeachment trial as an equivalent to a poor black person living in the ghetto.[115] Obama himself, when asked in a Democratic debate about Morrison's declaration of Clinton as "black", replied that Clinton had an enormous "affinity" with the black community, but joked he would need to see Clinton's dancing ability before judging him to be black.[116] |
” |
-- Louiedog ( talk) 01:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I noted one editor has been changing all instances of "health care" to "healthcare". From what I can tell, two separate words ("health care") seems to be the preferred usage (see here & here). And changing it in the names of internal links breaks the links, so I have changed it back to "health care". — JPMcGrath ( talk) 02:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
In the "White House FBI Files Controversy" section, the article says: Craig Livingstone, head of the White House Office of Personnel Security, improperly requested, and received from the FBI, background report files [...]. It then goes on to state that the Ray report stated "there was no substantial and credible evidence that any senior White House official was involved" in seeking the files. If Ray stated there is no evidence, and we present no sourced evidence, then why do we state that Livingstone improperly sought the files? I don't know enough about this case to confidently edit the section, so perhaps someone could help rectify this contradiction. Blackworm ( talk) 14:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
This article says he was born in 1946 and changed his name at age 14, which would be 1960 or 1961.
The articles about Roger Clinton, Sr., (his stepfather) and Virginia Clinton Kelley (his mother) both say that he changed his name in 1962, meaning either that he was 15 or 16 or that he was born in 1944 or 1945.
I remember seeing his mother saying (on television) that he changed his name at 18, which contradicts this article, but I saw that only once and in 1992, so I could be wrong. 71.109.159.242 ( talk) 04:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Paula Jones only filed for an appeal and did not prevail. In fact, the Appeals Court was still investigating the case by the time the settlement had been reached. Also, while Susan Webber Wright was a student of Clinton's, it is not worth mentioning. Wright also issued rulings that weren't 100% favorable to Clinton when she presided over the Whitewater investigation, like when she sentenced Susan McDougal to the maximum sentence of eighteen months in prison for contempt of court when she refused to answer three questions about whether or not Clinton lied in his testimony; as mentioned in her Wikipedia article. 98.240.254.121 ( talk) 03:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
There was a discussion here at the BLP Noticeboard about changing "scandal" to "sex scandal" in the lede. The consensus was to treat the Clarence Thomas lede and this one the same, and therefore include the word "sex" in neither lede. However, because the Clarence Thomas lede now does include "sex," it seems like this lede may as well too. Please keep in mind WP:Spade.
If anyone disagrees, please give more than a two-word explanation. Thanks. 108.18.185.163 ( talk) 03:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
please change
becoming the first Democrat since Franklin Roosevelt to win presidential reelection
to
becoming the first Democratic incumbent since Lyndon Johnson to be elected to a second term and the first Democrat since Franklin Roosevelt to be elected President more than once
because
the term "presidential reelection" is not correct, because
1. The word "reelection" is sometimes used to refer to any election of a current President to another term, including Presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Lyndon Johnson who were not elected to their original term. By this definition, Clinton would be the first Democrat since Lyndon Johnson, not the first since Franklin Roosevelt.
2. When it refers to a President of the U.S., the term is "Presidential", with a capital P, not presidential
71.109.159.30 ( talk) 16:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Surely Clinton "is" something rather than "was". Yes, his primary fame is routed in his former president-ship, but I thought "was" is reserved for deceased biographies...? Any suggestions how this can be changed? Keith1234 ( talk) 16:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how to edit this but I'm pretty sure this is wrong:
In office January 9, 1979 – January 19, 1981
2 years as governor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.23.116 ( talk • contribs) 03:55, 11 September 2010
Bill's work to modify the Community Reinvestment Act which led to the creation of the Ninja loans (and hence the GFC) really needs to be documented here. 124.169.16.180 ( talk) 04:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)J
The article twice says Pres. Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III. It cites a page at whitehouse.gov, which indeed says "III". But I've spent the last eighteen years (until now) with the understanding that he was born the fourth, not the third. In fact, the childhood photo of him at Wikipedia calls him the fourth. Could the White House webpage be wrong? Or could everyone else have been wrong for almost two decades? What's the story? President Lethe ( talk) 07:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
It still doesn't look entirely decisive for me. Then I also consider that, even if his original birth certificate leans one way, the way his family thought of his name in those early years may lean the other. Anyway, this helps satisfy my curiosity; thanks for pointing me to those discussions, Tarc. — President Lethe ( talk) 22:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm no less confused than anyone else here. His father's article also seems to be undecided. How can one officially verify whether it is III or IV? Thesomeone987 ( talk) 21:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Thesomeone987
This topic-the EEG Expressor and Instant EEG can be performed in the medical center,but I am not in a medical center,so I can not follow up the topic is performed on schedule or not? By the way,do you still care the politice? I make a plan for the membership of the U.N. to the Republic Of China,not just confirmed in the computer website,or just talk with Obama?What's the psychologic condition of the members of the U.N.? How can I make them to support my Plan? The [annunal fee] for the organization though so many countries do not pay the annual fee, [A war?], the Korea is not tuff enough to create a war,So my plane is perfect! A troop as a branch of the goverment outside the U.N.and decision should be maken in the U.N.! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.33.23.93 ( talk) 17:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Could a reference be added:
Bill Clinton has been acknowledged by Mr Jason Gale as being the inspiration for the London Lifestyle Awards —Preceding unsigned comment added by PLyon-Lee ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a suggestion that applies to all living presidents, but I thought to post it hear as I was noticing it at this moment. Shouldn't the line "was the # President of the United States" be "is the # President of the United States". I would think this to be the case for living presidents, as they are still recognized as Mr. President, even after their term has been served. I may be wrong, but I thought this was customary, and the present tense "is" would more accurately reflect this custom. Chris.P.Dunning ( talk) 22:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Article says.. "The Congressional Budget Office reported a budget surplus in 2000, the last full year of Clinton's presidency."
It would be fair to add after that, that even though it may have been reported as being so, that it is incorrect as Dept. of the Treasury website shows that there never was a surplus, just a lower deficit. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
(I looked that website up, and it takes a while to load, but it is an official government website accessible/linked to from http://www.ustreas.gov/ after you select "Bureaus" then "Bureau of public debt" followed by "US public debt to the penny.")
Suggest adding this information on, change to.. "The Congressional Budget Office inaccurately reported a budget surplus in 2000, the last full year of Clinton's presidency when in fact there was still (and always has been) a deficit." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.177.102 ( talk • contribs)
I see where you are coming from but the way it is reported is misleading as the countries national debt has not been "not a debt" at any point within the last few decades. Intragovernmental holdings (IE debt) is not accounted for in the statement that is usually made in regards to said surplus, as is the case in the original statement. Intragovernmenal debt is in this instance, made up of social security surplus used to pay for national debt (via the purchase of US government securities) which social security is legally required to do. So in essence the money has been borrowed from one pocket to be placed in another, covering the debt up and making it appear as a surplus when in fact it is not and in reality increments the national debt once said debts interests are accounted for. Good source of information with its own sources inside: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.177.102 ( talk) 17:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I merely posted it since it has sources of its own that are relevant, such as the link to the treasury departments logs of public debt for the past few years. The source may not be reliable, but the information contained in it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.177.102 ( talk) 19:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Not trying to use common knowledge as a source, since that site I linked last is basically common knowledge (you cannot pay down debt by taking on more debt from another source.) The US Department of Treasury is http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np 71.100.177.102 ( talk) 19:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I apologize, I just realized I said "A good source..etc.." above. More accurately I should have said "A reference I just found and could use to explain what I mean." Still relevant so please disregard that it says "a good source." Don't mean that to be linked in Wikipedia article page itself either. 71.100.177.102 ( talk) 20:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
bill clinton is a hoe!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.14.191 ( talk) 23:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
bill clinton is very important 2 your country —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.14.191 ( talk) 23:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I have begun work on the Clinton article. I am working off of a new peer review that i requested. The work is nearly done, and I believe that with your help, it can be finished even quicker. I have marked off what I have done on the peer review. The review can be found on the article.-- Iankap99 ( talk) 21:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by "The references needs some pruning"?
"Too many references, I would try and keep it under 100 if possible" This seems absurd, the Obama article has 300.
Thanks for the read through and suggested improvements, would you mind if I cross them off here when I finish them?-- Iankap99 ( talk) 21:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
You missed this last time around. Thanks.
I noticed this comment regarding the original 1992 campaign "By election time, the economy was souring and Bush saw his approval rating plummet to just slightly over 40%." While this statement regarding Bush's approval rating being low is true, the US economy was in the state of recovery in November 1992. In the 9 months prior to election day the economy had been growing above 4%, about a million jobs had been added, and unemployment had been declining (albeit slowly). Of course, the economic downturn of 1990-91 was largely responsible for Bush's decline in popularity, however, the way the article is worded it makes you think the economy had just entered recession around election day when such was not the case.-- FrankieG123 ( talk) 18:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Fareed Zakaria of Foreign Affairs wrote for New York Times that Milosevic who rules "an impoverished country that has not attacked its neighbors — is no Adolf Hitler. He is not even Saddam Hussein." (clinton said for Milosevic that he is Hitler.)
what the croatians call an occupied territory is a land which the serbs have held for more than 3 centuries. most of the same is true for the serb land in bosnia. US has punished one side in this war and unfairly. - foreign affairs sep/oct 1994
188.2.169.209 ( talk) 00:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
ps.
Michael Parenti has some good citations on the topic from establised media. There is also an informative video
here.
188.2.169.209 (
talk) 00:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Although Clinton and his mother are related, they are still seperate people. Both pages contain enough individual information about their subject to remain seperate. Such a merger would be pointless and confusing to those looking up information on either person. KosmischeSynth ( talk) 16:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I am removing Bill Clinton from the category "American adoptees". The article refers to William Jefferson Blythe, Jr. as Clinton's father and Roger Clinton as his stepfather. Our article on Roger Clinton also refers to Bill Clinton as Roger's stepson. Bill Clinton's White House biography also refers to William Jefferson Blythe, Jr. as his father and makes no reference to an adoption by Roger Clinton. -- Allen ( talk) 17:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
In Agency and the Hill: The CIA's Relationship with Congress (2008), L. Britt Snider writes:
A search for "Britt Snider" in Wikipedia turns up a few interesting pages where he's cited, mostly involving the CIA, over which he was inspector general at one point in his career. Is there enough information/credibility here to edit the article?— Biosketch ( talk) 21:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
F U
Bill Clinton are vegan?
EGroup (
talk) 08:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
In the last paragraph (which is a single sentence) of the section entitled "Attempted capture of Osama bin Laden," reference is made to "the warning" for which no referent exists. The reference is only made clear by following the citation at the end of the sentence. I recommend beginning that paragraph with:
"Also in 1996, the State Department warned the Clinton Administration that Afghanistan would provide bin Laden a safe haven from which to pursue his plan to expand radical Islam after he was expelled from Sudan."
This sentence will put the existence sentence into context. Ted Sweetser ( talk) 03:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The article mentioned Clinton's nickname, 'Slick Willie', but I remember him being called 'The Teflon Kid' after the Lewinsky affair. Does anyone know of a good reference for this? I did a quick web search but didn't come up with much. 94.72.235.210 ( talk) 19:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Without an appropriate explanation, User:Orangemarlin has twice removed two words from the lede of the article. This changed
"Later he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with a scandal involving sex with a White House intern, but was subsequently acquitted by the U.S. Senate..."
to read
"Later he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with a scandal involving a White House intern, but was subsequently acquitted by the U.S. Senate..."
This was a revert of my text, which I feel clarifies the subject of the scandal in a helpful and succinct manner.
His first edit summary was
Reverted to revision 434304094 by Jim Michael: NPOV
-- though I had asked for a discussion on the talk page regarding that, none came; instead, Orangemarlin's second edit summary was
Longstanding NPOV version. Per WP:BRD convince a consensus on talk for change. Stop edit warring..
Point one: WP:NPOV basically states that all information should be appropriately weighed and reported from an objective point of view, and I don't see why a two-word reference to the facts of the scandal should violate that criterion.
Point two: WP:CENSOR leads me to believe that a discussion of the sexual nature of the Lewinsky scandal is in no way inappropriate, and WP:CONSENSUS states that "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable." (Nor, for that matter, do I actually see any past consensus for excluding the wording in question.)
In essence, I would like to see reasons why "involving sex with an intern" is inappropriate wording, and to be informed as to exactly how it (allegedly) violates the spirit / letter of WP:NPOV. If this objection is not adequately clarified, I will revert back. Zloyvolsheb ( talk) 19:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, there are two problems:
-- Louiedog ( talk) 21:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Done. Please feel free to remove inappropriate section heading's and not revert future Good Faith Edits.
-- QuAz GaA 22:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
A discussion on the Barack Obama page about whether noting Obama is the first President born in the second half of the 20th century is relevant (it's not), I thought the parallel would be Bill Clinton, the first President born after WW2. I think, like the note that Jimmy Carter was the first President born in a hospital, the WW2 note ought to appear here in the lede. Thoughts? Oneinatrillion ( talk) 18:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
This edit removed the notable fact that he got $100,000 per speech. The Clintons made around $100,000,000 from books and speeches and other sources. He earned $31,000,000 between 2001-2005 alone:
{{
cite news}}
: Missing pipe in: |title=
(
help) --
Javaweb (
talk) 19:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)JavawebIt's true, but it's not notable in a GA biography. Clinton has had many, many jobs earning many different amounts of money, but not all of them deserve mention. As the GA reviewer said, it was obviously placed where it was intended to show a link between Bill Clinton raising money and Hillary Clinton's political aspirations, but I couldn't find any reliable sources that claim a link. As such, we don't mention it here any more than Clinton's salary as president. – Quadell ( talk) 21:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't have any such intentions. Indeed this reference does not imply that either: "[2006], ... Clinton earned $9 million to $10 million on the lecture circuit....352 speeches -- but only about 20 percent were for personal income...[80%] given for no fee or for donations to the William J. Clinton Foundation, the nonprofit group he founded to pursue causes such as the fight against AIDS." Thanks for pointing out the other articles and the concerns during the GA review. -- Javaweb ( talk) 00:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
I would like to report a factual error in this article. The error is that it says that WJ Clinton's presidential term began at the end of the cold war. Clinton served as POTUS after the cold war had already ended. This can be confirmed in the wiki article (as well as many, many other reliable sources as well). I request that this article remove and correct this erroneous entry in order to be accurate and correct (an important and very valid Wikipedia motivation). Clinton's term began in 1993, this is two years after the end of the cold war. The George H.W. Bush BLP should also be edited for the factual entry that GHWB served as POTUS (seeing that this is important and was included in WJC BLP) at the time that the cold war ended. The fact that Clinton had absolutely NOTHING to do with the cold war may or may not be added for clarity on this very important point in American history. Thank you and have a great day! 98.64.75.179 ( talk) 16:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I just mean that is a factual error. Why even say anything about the cold war at all? I suppose it could say he was the first president elected after the cold war was over or had concluded (1991). It made me look at GHWB BLP and it says absolutely nothing about the cold war at all. So, I mean to say that Clinton did enough without associating him with something that his presidency had nothing to do with. GHWB BLP wouldn't state anything about the Cuban missile crisis,watergate, or the Falkland war, so why is the cold reference even in this BLP? Also, the Clinton Foundation has many causes with which it contributes support and aid to, perhaps, it should be expanded in that regard as wellrather than just stating aids support (good cause, but not the only important one). Thanks.... Why is this article even locked down from being edited by others? 65.8.150.136 ( talk) 17:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:Statue of Bill Clinton in Kosovo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC) |
I believe that it bears mentioning that even though a Federal Budget surplus was recorded by the CBO, the National Debt rose each year President Clinton held office. While this increase is not unique to Clinton, it is a fact (uncontested by OMB historical figures, CBO, and Treasury) that it happened during his presidency. Not only does it demonstrate that the accounting methods for reporting budget surpluses and deficits are inaccurate, it shows that even this President, widely regarded as a fiscal conservative, was unable to avoid increasing the National Debt of the United States.
As far as the sources I cited being primary or secondary, I consider the links to the Treasury secondary. They report the numbers that are recorded in a balance statement or accounting workbook (primary) on a website (secondary).
Also, if still considered primary, I would cite the following statement from the policy on primary sources located on the Wikipedia No Original Research project page:
In this case, I think the Treasury website is very straightforward. It shows the total end of fiscal year debt for each year, grouped into decades. Two links were required to show years ending in 1990s and then for year 2000. Rlantzy2112 ( talk) 02:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The article states "Clinton was the first President to pardon a death-row inmate since the federal death penalty was reintroduced in 1988.[30]". I think it should say that "President Clinton issued a clemency order to a death-row inmate, commuting his sentence from the death penalty to life in prison." This would not imply that a murderer was set free. This site here lists the executive order in question: http://www.justice.gov/pardon/clinton_comm.htm with the innmate named as David Ronald Chandler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.112.118 ( talk) 18:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Under the presidential campaign, it states: The election gave Democrats full control of the United States Congress.[3] It was the first time this had occurred since Democrats controlled the 95th United States Congress during the Jimmy Carter presidency in the late 1970s.[42]
This is completely untrue, as even an examination of the linked websites will verify. For example, the 96th and 100th Congresses were Democrat controlled, as were the 101st and 102nd. Democrats maintained control for the 103rd Congress, when Clinton got elected. In fact, the more notable event was during Clinton's re-election, where Congress turned Republican for the first time since the 83rd Congress, in the 1950s. Someone please correct the article. 24.126.30.61 ( talk) 01:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Clinton was member of the fraternal young mens organization, served as Master Councilor (Presiding Officer) of his Chapter and was selected for the DeMolay Hall of Famein 1988 when he was still Governor of Arkansas. Alienlenny ( talk) 21:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)alienlenny
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The persondata structure at the bottom of the markup lists the wrong birth date for Bill Clinton. Here is the current persondata:
{{Persondata |NAME=Clinton, Bill |ALTERNATIVE NAMES=Clinton, William Jefferson (full name) |SHORT DESCRIPTION=42nd President of the United States (1993–2001) |DATE OF BIRTH=August 8, 1946 |PLACE OF BIRTH=Hope, Arkansas |DATE OF DEATH= |PLACE OF DEATH= }}
Here is what it should be: {{Persondata |NAME=Clinton, Bill |ALTERNATIVE NAMES=Clinton, William Jefferson (full name) |SHORT DESCRIPTION=42nd President of the United States (1993–2001) |DATE OF BIRTH=August 19, 1946 |PLACE OF BIRTH=Hope, Arkansas |DATE OF DEATH= |PLACE OF DEATH= }}
128.30.44.116 ( talk) 21:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
It says many times than Clinton "has been described as a New Democrat". The impression is given the media coined the phrase, but in reality it was his 1992 campaign that thought it up. Prehaps the wording should be changed.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 00:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
*The
WP:CAPTION is ungrammatical, suggesting that he ran for election the year he received his degree, which is almost certainly untrue.
{{
Personality rights}}
should probably on his civilian years photos before and after his public service years.
Comments on other reviews:
Overall, I am concerned that this biography is one where nominators who feel fondly of the subject are merely looking for a quick "It looks O.K." response when a lot of work needs to be done. This article will not meet the ever-increasing WP:WIAGA standards without substantial effort.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 12:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I have now completely overhauled the references. A few egregiously bad refs have been redone. All broken link have been repaired or replaced. Missing date or author information has been supplied where needed, and access dates have been supplied or updated as needed. – Quadell ( talk) 14:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The following sentence appears in the article:
'To weaken Saddam Hussein's grip of power, Clinton signed H.R. 4655 into law on October 31, 1998, which instituted a policy of "regime change" against Iraq, though it explicitly stated it did not speak to the use of American military forces.'
This sentence is inaccurate. The text of H.R. 4655 does in fact speak to the use of American military forces, under Sec. 4(a)(2), which reads:
'(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations. '(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.139.251 ( talk) 22:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Rewritten to clarify. No direct intervention by US military forces. Assistance (articles, training), not troops on the ground. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 21:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Bill Clinton added 6 million jobs thats 250,000 a month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.201.160 ( talk) 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The Article should include an "Urban legend" or "Common misconception" Section. This new Section should mention, among other things, that Clinton did not murder Vince Foster, despite popular belief. (Vince Foster actually committed suicide if anyone's curious.) The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 19:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The intro to this entry merely states that, "Later, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in a scandal involving a White House intern, but was acquitted by the U.S. Senate and served his complete term of office." Yet, don't you think the Impeachment of a President is a more serious event than this (especially since it has only been successfully pursued twice in the history of the United States?)
Impeachment is a serious event for any President: It has only been attempted three times, and was aborted only once (Nixon resigned rather than go through the ordeal.) Thus, the fact that this opening entry omits the fact that Bill Clinton is only the second out of 44 Presidents successfully impeached can be seen as an overt attempt by partisan supporters to both whitewash and minimize the importance of this event in American history.
You should at least mention the fact that Bill Clinton's Impeachment was only the second time in American History that such an event has taken place. IMHO Thanks 122.26.58.230 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC).
It was my understanding that Bill Clinton was impeached, just not removed from office. Not sure about the acquital by the US Senate. The sentance that was handed down was shunning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixion123 ( talk • contribs) 05:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article source for the statement "He has also expressed support for gay marriage" is not specifically about Bill Clinton and does not give any quotes or information that would indicate the statement is true. 184.6.104.141 ( talk) 06:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
The category and info box say he is Baptist. Are there any sources for this? The reason I ask is because he attended Catholic school and his wife's article states that she is United Methodist. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 20:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second term passage, it states that Clinton was the 2nd president impeached, after Andrew Johnson. This must be corrected since Richard Nixon was impeached in the 70s due to the Watergate scandal. This is common knowledge, and MUST be fixed.
Boisebound78 ( talk) 15:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
If that chart is to be believed, we had 4 years of Ford budgets, followed by 3 years of Carter, 9 years of Reagan, 3 years of Bush Sr., and 9 years of Clinton. That's not right. William Jockusch ( talk) 05:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the public image section on this page is almost exactly the same as the lower section on the page Public Image of Bill Clinton. I think we should make this section drastically smaller or add what the other page says to this article for that page is not that long. Jibajabba ( talk) 12:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Seeing Tarc's violent reaction, I realize this probably won't be easy, but if Wikipedia truly wants to be an unbiased encyclopedia his impeachment needs to be in the opening paragraph. If the Nixon article opened with mention of his young age becoming VP but no mention of his resignation, it would be wrong.
The opening paragraph for Bill Clinton reports his young age (third youngest), him being the first baby-boomer president, but no mention of him being the second president impeached. No seriously unbiased editor can say that his impeachment should not be in the opening paragraph. Rodchen ( talk) 00:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
You can see the history to see the violent reaction. And Clinton being 46 and the third youngest man to become president was a defining moment??? Him being the first baby boomer president was a defining moment? Of course it should be included in the opening paragraph. If Nixon's opening paragraph discussed China, war in Vietnam and Russian relations but nothing of watergate or his resignation, wouldn't that seem strange to you???? Rodchen ( talk) 10:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
One hundred years from now people will remember Clinton as being the second president who was impeached, just like most Andrew Johnson is basically remembered for only 2 things: succeeding Lincoln and his impeachment. I will try to rewrite the opening lead. I had wanted to avoid ruffling too many feathers, but if a rewrite is needed I will give it a try. Rodchen ( talk) 04:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)