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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

I agree we shouldn't whitewash history, which is what you are attempting to do with this Clinton article. The photos are relevant and you have not contested this. You agree that similar pictures should be included on Bush's page, so why not on this page right now? Talk before changing the page.

-- Nyr14 00:25, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have talked, however, you have not listened. Biography pages of Presidents are not here for images of wars and conflicts that happened during their time. Each war or conflict has their own page, just as Kosovo does, and that is where it belongs. The only way those images stay are if images of dead bodies from Iraq are on the George W. Bush page. Clearly you are a partisan who is trying to demonize Clinton all over again, but it isn't going to work. The Kosovo war was necessary and well orchestrated with no American casulties. Please add your input on this war on the Kosovo page, not the Clinton biography page. ChrisDJackson 02:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We are not talking about other president's pages but the Clinton page. President pages are here to inform people about Presidents both good and bad. The good was that Clinton stopped the forced migration and helped many refugees (shown in the picture currently up). However, there were a lot of refugees that never got that chance because of him. Both of these points should be made.

Your first claim for removing the image was that it was not relevant. It is a picture of the Kosovo War in a section about the Kosovo War.

To follow your logic we should remove the Oslo Accords picture because there is a seperate page for it. There is a seperate page for the Charlemagne Award. Your picture should be removed because there is a sepearte page about the Kosovo War. The impeachment picture is also on Impeachment of Bill Clinton. Hillary's confirmation didn't happen until after his presidency and so that picture should be removed and people should just go to the 2000 senate election page.

Furthermore, I'm not a partisan at all. You're the one that has a biography page about how much you love the Democratic Party.

-- Nyr14 02:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

• The point Chris is making is that your pictures showed a war, and the current set show Bill Clinton in various locations. Yes, this page is about Bill Clinton and what happened during his presidency, but first and foremost it is about Bill Clinton - that's the heading, isn't it? So by all means, make mention of Kosovo - and the article does that - but refer everything to Clinton. That's what these pictures do. It's an article about what happened while Clinton was president, but moreso about his involvement in these events. Showing a picture of bodies on a road does nothing but send a message to the reader that Clinton had some sort of direct connection with these deaths, and you cannot claim that without proof, but showing him at a refugee camp says, "Yes, he did have an involvement in a war, and here's the proof!" Harro5 ( talk · contribs) 03:00, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

They were bombs that Clinton ordered to be dropped. That's his involvement. The section of the article discusses specifically the NATO bombing campaign which was ordered by Clinton. The pictures are specifically from an accidental bombing which Clinton took the blame for. I'll refer you to an article titled "Civilian Deaths Inevitable In Warfare, Clinton Says" from the page A11 of New York Times on April 16, 1999:

"What we believe happened is that the pilot thought it was a military convoy and that there were apparently civilians in the convoy who were killed. That is regrettable; it is also inevitable," the President said. Despite such "errors," he vowed to continue the bombing campaign until President Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia stopped terrorizing and killing Albanians and driving them from their homes.

Therefore showing the picture of the bombing's effect is extremely relevant.

-- Nyr14 03:18, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

You are clearly a hack who is out to re-write history. By trying to insert photos of dead bodies into a bio page of President Clinton, you are trying to say he killed those people. It just isn't right and it won't fly here. ChrisDJackson 03:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He took the blame for killing those people. [1] "Well, first of all, what we believe happened is that the pilot thought it was a military convoy and that there were apparently civilians in the convoy who were killed."

84 of them were killed. thats about 1/6 of the deaths that Milosevic ended up being charged with.

-- Nyr14 03:29, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Everytime I readd the pictures they are taken down with no explanation. Can whomever put the neutrality dispute up please tell why?

-- Nyr14 01:31, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• I added the NPOV header up on this section because there obviously is a dispute happening. Look how many comments you and ChrisDJackson have made back and forth, and the amount of reverts. If this isn't a NPOV dispute, I don't know what is. Frankly, I think it is appauling that you feel you can justify putting pictures of bodies on a President's page. Wikipedia is used by people as young as grade school students for research - in fact, Google's third result for 'Bill Clinton' is his Wiki page, and you feel it necessary to add pictures of war and death to it. Please explain that. Harro5 ( talk · contribs) 07:48, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it could be considered an NPOV dispute. The picture up right now is extremely misleading; if a grade school student, or anyone for that matter, saw only that picture then they would go away with this notion that Bill Clinton was this great guy (and he did, in fact, help a lot of people that had been forcefully migrated). In order to be balanced, however, we should also show pictures of what some critics think of "bad". Hence, the pictures. Bill Clinton took responsibility for the attack and this information should be better known to others.

-- Nyr14 10:56, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

---

My thoughts:

Personally, I would favor having no images at all in this section, or else a picture of protesters marching against the Kosovo War or something like that. Pictures should directly illustrate the subject of the subsection here, to avoid POV problems. The subject here is criticism of foreign policy, so we should show somebody criticizing his foreign policy. A picture of Pat Buchanan denouncing NAFTA might be most appropriate.

In addition, this whole thing is a POV mess--and not just the subject in question. Specifically, I'd like to get a citation on the 103d Congress initiating the independent counsel investigations. As such ,I've removed that allegation until a citation can be provided (the allegation was in the lead section ,if you're interested). I've also removed the pic of Clinton holding a child from the foreign policy criticisms section . Meelar (talk) 19:46, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Would anyone have objections to discussing the specific incident? What about a link to the picture?

-- Nyr14 21:08, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

---

As far as the picture in question was concerned, I believe that it is prudent to not display it. If one is to research Eisenhower, Reagan, Johnson, (on Wikipedia) they do not see pictures of dead Koreans, Panamanians, or Vietnamese. It IS prudent to mention the controversy and casualties, but not to publish dead bodies on a presidents bio page, after all, pictures of dead bodies are first and foremost still pictures of dead bodies.

thoolie

I really like the new photo, thanks very much Chris!-- Sina 23:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No problem. However, someone is trying to remove it. I am about sure it is from the White House at the very end of his tenure, but cannot confirm it now. I found it on other sites, including at Cornell University. Hopefully it will stay though. ChrisDJackson 21:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He served as Arkansas AG, this should be included in the succession box. Link for data: http://www.ag.state.ar.us/index_low.htm (Jim Guy Tucker: 1973-1977 Bill Clinton: 1977-1979 Steve Clark: 1979-1990) NoSeptember 11:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Political Consultants such as Paul Begala and James Carville are referred to as "[Political Party] Spin Doctors" as exemplified in the Hillary Clinton page's reference to, "Republican spin doctor Arthur Finkelstein".

I am glad to be of service in applying the same standard here. plain_regular_ham 14:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The term Spin Doctor and Political Spin was exemplified in the 90's and even had a popular T.V. show called Spin City. Spin was not limited to those two people only. The entire administration used this technique frequently to rebuff unkept promises.

Example: Clinton said that he would have 'done the same thing' as Bush about the Iraq war on Larry King Live in an interview with his wife; in 2003. The next year in this article he says Bush 'rushed to war' obviously trying to promote Kerry at the time. Where is the truth here?

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/06/25/clinton/

John Kerry did the same types of things during the devisive 2004 Predidential election.

This is pure poltically oportunistic. If that's not Spin I don't know what is. Why are democrats fooled by this?

"Lots of people get parodied" in no way justifies omission of information. Sorry. Lots of people have birthplaces. Must we never mention them? plain_regular_ham 19:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I stand by my edit summaries. "Person X has been parodied for personal characteristics Y and Z" is a generic statement which could be applied to any public figure and is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Gamaliel 17:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I find your reasoning troubling as I have been working against your a link to what you insist is a link to a Karl Rove 'biography'...

"Portly, balding, malicious, simpering, he looks like a cross between Sesame Street's Mr. Hooper and the Third Reich's Heinrich Himmler. And he acts like a cross between Heinrich Himmler and Henry Kissinger. Whom he also looks like. And not in a good way. Oh yeah, he's a man who compromised national security, putting lives of American agents in danger. Wait, I forgot a word there. What was it? Oh, I remember! Allegedly." (from rotten.com)

I have been trying to learn from your exemplary adherence to NPOV and standards. It is difficult because there seems to be more than one standard. Am I missing something? plain_regular_ham 19:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

If there is a rotten.com biography page on Bill Clinton, I support its inclusion in this article. That's a consistent standard. Comparing two unlike things in a snide way and saying that I'm inconsistent is not a coherent nor a civil argument. Gamaliel 21:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Take it easy Gamaliel. Next time I will be less creative and simply say that you are demonstrating a double-standard. So, "he looks like a cross between Sesame Street's Mr. Hooper and the Third Reich's Heinrich Himmler" is acceptable but mention of common parody subjects for a figure is not? I'm sorry Gamaliel. I am really not on board with your reasoning. plain_regular_ham 00:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no "double standard" as these are two entirely different things. Gamaliel 00:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Please go on. plain_regular_ham 00:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The Rove quote does not appear anywhere on Wikipedia. It is on another website merely linked to from here. If anything like that quote was added to this article or the Rove article I would support its removal. If anyone added a sentence to the Rove article that said "Rove is frequently parodied for X and Y" I would support its removal. Gamaliel 02:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

If you say so Gamaliel. You are the admin. I will say that inclusion of links such as the one from rotten.com, and attempting to portray them as legitimate, speak poorly of the validity of Wikipedia. Is there any standard for links? plain_regular_ham 20:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Why is it not "legitimate"? I don't see why we should limit ourselves to mainstream news and information sources. Gamaliel 23:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I suppose answer to the FAQ, "Q. Why do you do it?", bears consideration:

"A. Our staff loves to upset people, it keeps our stools regular. Since the site has actually acquired a life of its own, it really is out of our hands. Well, that's true until we switch to an adult contemporary music format. "

Not to mention the direct links to Pornopolis.com and fetishmaximus.com. Should this really be looked upon as more legitimate than perhaps an "editorial" source? Perhaps the Rove link should be called, "Critical Editorial/Biography" if it is included at all. plain_regular_ham 14:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Noted rotten.com link on Hillary Clinton page and updated description as above. Let me know your thoughts here or there Gamaliel. plain_regular_ham 14:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Though I generally prefer not to categorize links so the reader can make up his/her own mind, I think this is a reasonable compromise. Gamaliel 18:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The first two citations in this section are misquotes. "Defense Secretary William Cohen, claiming that genocide had occurred in Kosovo..." Nowhere in the cited article does Cohen claim genocide. His assertions in this article are far too qualified to attribute a claim of "genocide" to him from this article.

The very next sentence attributes the claim of genocide to Clinton himself, but the speech cited never mentions genocide at all. The closest he comes in this speech is paragraph 13:

"Though his ethnic cleansing is not the same as the ethnic extermination of the Holocaust, the two are related -- both vicious, premeditated, systematic oppression fueled by religious and ethnic hatred. This campaign to drive the Kosovars from their land and to, indeed, embrace their very identity is an affront to humanity and an attack not only on a people, but on the dignity of all people."

The only reference by Clinton to genocide re: Kosovo I could find was actually about Bosnia some years previous. In his speech on 24 March 1999:

"We learned some of the same lessons in Bosnia just a few years ago. The world did not act early enough to stop that war, either. And let's not forget what happened -- innocent people herded into concentration camps, children gunned down by snipers on their way to school, soccer fields and parks turned into cemeteries; a quarter of a million people killed, not because of anything they have done, but because of who they were. Two million Bosnians became refugees. This was genocide in the heart of Europe -- not in 1945, but in 1995."

In Bosnia, Milosevic did preside over an actual genocide (estimated 200,000 deaths). For some reason that fact is ignored in this section.

Given the misquotes, the first two paragraphs in this section are bizarre. There were only 5900 US troops involved in a very successful NATO effort where no US troops were killed, yet takes seriously unnamed sources that accuse Clinton of "leading the United States to war with Kosovo under the false pretense of genocide".

So, unless some better cites for Cohen and Clinton are found, the whole part about Kosovo should be deleted. The opening sentence, "Some critics have accused..." is a weaseler and indicates a weak statement. "Some critics" make every accusation imaginable, so it is not NPOV to give them space without subjecting them to the same rigorous standards as any other source. Naysayer 5:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll give it another week or so before removing the aforementioned paragraphs. Not sure if there's any worthwhile criticism about Kosovo that I should replace it with, other than the "wag the dog" stuff, which I find ludicrous, but at least slightly more reasoned and moderate than what's in this section now. Naysayer 05:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Clinton administration claimed that both genocide and ethnic cleansing were taking place. I did not include a reference to the claim of genocide because that was (I thought) common knowledge. The New York Times reported on March 30, 1999 in an article written by Francis X Clines titled "NATO Hunting for Serb Forces; U.S. Reports Signs of 'Genocide'" appearing on page A1 that:

"NATO bombers hunted for Serbian troops in embattled Kosovo today and the Administration said evidence of 'genocide' by Serbian forces was growing to include 'abhorrent and criminal action' on a vast scale. The language was the State Department's strongest yet in denouncing Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic."

CNN wrote:

"Accusing Serbia of 'ethnic cleansing' in Kosovo similar to the genocide of Jews in World War II, an impassioned President Clinton sought Tuesday to rally public support for his decision to send U.S. forces into combat against Yugoslavia, a prospect that seemed increasingly likely with the breakdown of a diplomatic peace effort." [2]

William Cohen gave a speech in which he said:

"The appalling accounts of mass killing in Kosovo and the pictures of refugees fleeing Serb oppression for their lives makes it clear that this is a fight for justice over genocide" [3]

Clinton (responding to some of those critics calling him a war criminal) said:

"NATO did not commit war crimes. NATO stopped war crimes. NATO stopped deliberate, systematic efforts at ethnic cleansing and genocide." [4]

However, NATO, stopping those war crimes, killed more civilians than Milosevic did.

You wrote "In Bosnia, Milosevic did preside over an actual genocide (estimated 200,000 deaths). For some reason that fact is ignored in this section."

The section is about Clinton's foreign policy. Clinton did not intervene in Bosnia. That is why the fact is "ignored" in this section.

Some critics include Thomas E. Woods, [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14861 Joseph Farah], among others.

And, by the way, you're right that we didn't lose any soldiers in the Kosovo conflict; we lost two. [5] And if by "sucessful" you mean that we stopped "genocide" that wasn't going on and simultaneously killed thousands of innocent civilians, then the Kosovo operation was extremely sucessful.

-- Nyr14 05:02, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the appropriate sources. You did in fact cite sources originally, albeit inappropriate ones. They should be fixed if they haven't been already.

"Ethnic cleansing", a broader term than genocide, was the more commonly used, and the misquoted sources made me wonder whether there were some inflated claims of the admin using the latter term.

The argument that Clinton is a war criminal because the deaths in Kosovo did not meet the standards of "genocide" is an unusual variation of the "post hoc" fallacy: a Denial of Causation or Connection (a Cart Without a Horse). We already know that there was genocide in Bosnia committed by the Serbs under Milosevic. Now the argument is that Clinton becomes a war criminal by successfully stopping another genocide by the same group, under the same leader, against essentially the same victim group. If Clinton had been less successful at stopping the Serbs, then the Serbs would have killed more Kosovars, and Clinton would be "justified" in intervening because of his lack of military success. Here's your source on the nature of Clinton's "crimes":

"Yet, there is just no evidence to support Clinton's conclusion (about genocide). Where are the bodies? So far, examination of the most likely dumping grounds has produced only 2,108. That's hardly genocide. It's tragic. But how does it justify an international bombing campaign that may well have resulted in far more civilian deaths in Serbia?" (emphasis added)[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14861]

The question is, "Do such bizarre, illogical criticisms have a place in an encyclopedic article?" I would say no, but am willing to compromise. But first, a correction. Clinton did in fact intervene to stop the genocide in Bosnia:

"On August 30, 1995, effective military intervention finally began as the U.S. led a massive NATO bombing campaign in response to the killings at Srebrenica, targeting Serbian artillery positions throughout Bosnia. The bombardment continued into October. Serb forces also lost ground to Bosnian Muslims who had received arms shipments from the Islamic world. As a result, half of Bosnia was eventually retaken by Muslim-Croat troops.

Faced with the heavy NATO bombardment and a string of ground losses to the Muslim-Croat alliance, Serb leader Milosevic was now ready to talk peace." [6]

So not mentioning Bosnia seems especially suspicious, since it reasonably explains the intervention in Kosovo.

The compromise: that this section include criticisms 1) of Clinton's delay in interceding in Bosnia and 2) criticisms that he interceded in Bosnia at all, and only then 3) the criticisms that he interceded in Kosovo. However, such a solution puts the article at risk for becoming a morass of competing rants from extremist sources, of which there are a neverending supply. OR we can scrap all extremist, partisan rhetoric of "some critics" (iow, remove the offending paragraphs) and create a decent article.

PS Citing worldnetdaily as a source? Thanks for the laugh. Naysayer 19:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The section, as is, does not mention nor comment on whether the war was "justified".

The first paragraph deals with Clinton lying about genocide going on and inflating the numbers of dead Albanians.

Bosnia was not mentioned because (to the best of my knowledge) the administration never used it to justify intervening in Kosovo. The American people would have a hard time sending troops over there because of something that happened four years before. Regardless, the main justifications for war by the adminstration were the 100,000 dead and the genocide that was occuring. Those two contentions turned out to be false.

I agree that this section needs a rewrite and to be referenced better. Perhaps we could use the reference system used by the Libertarianism page?

PS worldnetdaily is a legitimate source when used as an example of a critic, as I was doing. And it was never a source to be used in the article.

-- Nyr14 13:50, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

The first paragraph does not deal with Clinton lying about numbers of dead Kosovar Albanians, since it never mentions a number for dead Kosovar Albanians. Nyr14 said:

"Regardless, the main justifications for war by the adminstration were the 100,000 dead and the genocide that was occuring." (emphasis added)

But the article says:

Defense Secretary William Cohen, claiming that genocide had occurred in Kosovo, said, "We've now seen about 100,000 military-aged men missing... They may have been murdered." [7] Clinton also claimed that genocide was occurring, and spoke of "at least 100,000 (Kosovar Albanians) missing". (emphasis added)

I'll assume that Nyr14 is merely mistaken about what the article says, and not that Nyr14 is lying. Nyr14 is conflating two separate claims: one of a general policy of genocide, which turns out not to be an unreasonable claim given the genocide in Bosnia, and another claim of “100,000 military-aged men missing”, two claims that are then disingenuously equated to cook up an accusation of “lying”.

Moreover, not one of the sources cited in the article even mention Clinton “lying” about genocide in Kosovo. That is the author's own unsupported conclusion.

When that is fixed, the two offending paragraphs rewritten, and sources accusing Clinton of lying are cited, we can return to the issue of “justification” and all that.

Also, Nyr14, please do not accuse me of vandalism in the page history. I gave you a month to address the necessary changes, as well as a 5-day warning. You chose not to address the matter until a few hours after I made the change, then accused me of vandalism. Naysayer 18:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The administration said up to 500,000 may have been killed. The New York Times has also covered the huge disparity between the deaths claimed by "American and allied officials" and the amount of bodies actually found. The article was titled "Early Count Hints at Fewer Kosovo Deaths" and appeared on page A6 on November 11, 1999:

"While there are several hundred more reported sites to be examined in the spring, the number of the dead found so far seems significantly lower than the estimate of 10,000 ethnic Albanians killed by the Serbs, issued by Western officials, or the suggestion by American and allied officials during the war that up to 100,000 were being killed."

"During the war, however, estimated death figures were very high. On April 19, the State Department said that up to 500,000 Kosovar Albanians were missing and feared dead."

There was an editorial in the Washington Times on November 19, 1999 by Phyllis Schlafly in which she wrote:

"The embarrassing truth is starting to come out that the Clinton administration lied to us about Kosovo atrocities, which were supposed to justify the bombing of Yugoslavia. In five months of investigation, and exhumation of the dead in Kosovo, U.N. war crimes investigators have found only 2,108 bodies." [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a383733326c5a.htm] (You can verify it by a simple search on the Washington Times' website, as I already have)

But this argument is pointless as the article makes no claim of Clinton lying. As of now, it has a quote from Clinton and Cohen and then the real figure.

Your contention that the genocide in Bosnia justifies Kosovo is blatantly POV. Please comment about problems you have with the article.

I accused you of vandalism before I had seen the talk page (the talk page was not on my watchlist at the time).

-- Nyr14 23:08, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Nyr14, you wrote:

"The first paragraph deals with Clinton lying about genocide going on and inflating the numbers of dead Albanians."

Then you wrote:

"But this argument is pointless as the article makes no claim of Clinton lying."

Which is it? Well, it's the former, though it uses the term "false pretenses" instead of the word lying.

As I said, the article does not demonstrate "false pretenses", "lying", or whatever else you want to call it. The article as it stands does not cite a single source claiming false pretenses. Who is making the claim of false pretenses? You? The quotes from Cohen and Clinton do not support a claim of false pretenses. Please add and cite the "500,000 dead" quote instead of the "100,000 missing" or "500,000 missing and feared dead" quotes.

Nyr14 wrote:

"As of now, it has a quote from Clinton and Cohen and then the real figure."

I'll say it again: it has a quote from Cohen and Clinton on the number of dead missing at the time of the quote, and then the actual number of dead. Are you following? Missing is not the same as dead. Thankfully.

Also, I never claimed Kosovo was justified at all. What I did address was your source saying Kosovo was not justified because there were not enough deaths to be consider genocide. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14861] I also said that the claim of genocide, with all the sources cited and numbers given so far, is not enough to accuse Clinton of lying.

Maybe you could summarize what the intention of the Kosovo portion is meant to say, because you are contradicting yourself. Naysayer 01:28, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I feel it necessary to warn that I will still scrutinize any claims that Clinton lied about genocide in Kosovo when the section is rewritten. I've let a few such go by in an effort to limit digressions and keep the focus in this discussion. Naysayer 01:51, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The false pretense sentence in justified by the Phyllis Schlafly article and the worldnetdaily article. The section says "the false pretense of genocide". Milosevic was charged with the "murders of about 600 individually identified ethnic Albanians" [8]. That isn't genocide, and a UN court has also shared in that viewpoint [9]. This is contradictory to claims by both Clinton and his adminstration (the state department and Secretary of Defense William Cohen), whom claimed that the United States should intervene because of the genocide supposedly going on.

Also the article should be rewritten to seperate that part from the inflated numbers that the Clinton adminstration gave out.

And the article doesn't claim Clinton lied, it says "Some critics have accused Clinton of leading the United States to war with Kosovo under the false pretense of genocide."

So what exactly is your problem with the article, as it is now?

-- Nyr14 02:04, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Uncited quotes are not very useful (re: Shlafly editorial in "The Moonie Times", the worldnetdaily editorial).

Anyway, how about this compromise:

1) change "have accused" and "false pretense of genocide" in the first sentence to something like: "Some critics have noted that Clinton was incorrect in his prewar assertions that genocide was occurring in Kosovo." If you're not trying to imply Clinton was lying, you should have no problem with that. The primary definition of pretense is, "The act of pretending; a false appearance or action intended to deceive.". "False pretense" is redundant and means "wrong and intentionally wrong".

2) provide citations in sentences 2 and 3 of Cohen and Clinton using the term genocide as a prewar assertion

3) remove sentence 4, as it is very likely Clinton is referring to the Milosevic who killed "all those tens of thousands" in Bosnia

4) remove the entire second paragraph.

I will then add a piece about Bosnia and insert it in the section chronologically before the Kosovo portion, then maybe add some minor qualifiers to the Kosovo portion for the sake of continuity. We should not pretend any event happens in an historical vacuum. We can then revisit the subject later. Naysayer 04:09, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The tens of thousands quote was in reference to Kosovo. Here's the context:

"Now, having said that, what the Serbian people decide to do, of course, if their own affair. But they're going to have to come to grips with what Mr. Milosevic ordered in Kosovo. They're just going to have to come to grips with it. And they're going to have to get out of denial. They're going to have to come to grips with it. And then they're going to have to decide whether they support his leadership or not; whether they think it's okay that all those tens of thousands of people were killed, and all those hundreds of thousands of people were run out of their homes, and all those little girls were raped, and all those little boys were murdered. They're going to have to decide if they think that is okay. [10] (emphasis mine)"

I'm doing an extensive (and heavily referenced) rewrite of the first paragraph and I'll post it when I'm done (which might be late tommorow morning because it's getting late). We can discuss the 2nd paragraph when the first is done with.

-- Nyr14 04:35, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, he seems to be referring to Kosovo, but he is NOT referring to a preparation/pretext/argument for war. He is referring to Milosevic's election. I don't believe that you can use it in an 'argument for war' section.

I feel that I am compromising too much, since the entire criticism is based on a few mentions of the word genocide. Much more often the term "ethnic cleansing" was used, and the rest of the sentence you cut from the article, all of which is verifiable, "and all those hundreds of thousands of people were run out of their homes, and all those little girls were raped, and all those little boys were murdered," describes ethnic cleansing perfectly. Are the few uses of the word 'genocide' indicative of the case made by the Clinton administration, or were the much more frequent references to ethnic cleansing the pillar of the argument? I would say it was certainly the latter, but because he merely uttered the term genocide, proving my point would be a book-length endeavor. I had not addressed this up until now because I have been acting under the assumption, and increasingly so, that you are writing with a partisan agenda. In the rewrite you can demonstrate your objectivity in the matter by including the Big Picture.

We've already discussed the second paragraph to some degree. But we can rehash it if necessary. Naysayer 05:04, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now that the servers are updated I can post.

The "tens of thousands"quote is an inflated number example. Even after the war had ended he was still claiming "tens of thousands" were killed.

The administration and Clinton were claiming both ethnic cleansing and genocide. Ethnic cleansing was used more frequently because of the political implications the word "genocide" has (genocide is actually a form of ethnic cleansing [11]). They were both pillars of the argument (with the claim of genocide probably gave the adminstration more public backing). When The New York Times wrote an editorial asking for the country to go to war, they said, "Decisiveness and commitment are crucial now. If we let Mr. Milosevic complete his ethnic cleansing and genocide in Kosovo, it will be the greatest human catastrophe in Europe since World War II (Lewis, Anthony (Apr. 3, 1999). "Time To Get Serious". The New York Times, p. A15.)." The Washington Post followed the next day and didn't even mention ethnic clensing:

"We must do whatever is necessary to vindicate the authority of the international community and to stop the genocide. We can and should try to accomplish these objectives through the sustained and intensified use of air power. We must resist the instinct to find failure in the lack of an immediate dramatic result. At the same time, we should position strong, mobile forces in Macedonia and Albania to protect those fragile nations and to make it plain that no option has been foreclosed (Christopher, Warren (Apr. 4, 1999). "Whatever It Takes". The Washington Post, p. B07.)."

Your assumption is false; someone can be nonpartisan and disagree with what Clinton did.

-- Nyr14 June 28, 2005 13:37 (UTC)

Here's the rewrite I did with the references at the bottom:

Some critics have accused Clinton of leading the United States to war with Kosovo under the false pretense of genocide ^[12]. Others have accused him, and his administration, of inflating the number of Albanians killed by Serbians ^[13]. Secretary of Defense William Cohen, giving a speech, said, "The appalling accounts of mass killing in Kosovo and the pictures of refugees fleeing Serb oppression for their lives makes it clear that this is a fight for justice over genocide ^[14]." On CBS' Face the Nation Cohen claimed, "We've now seen about 100,000 military-aged men missing...They may have been murdered ^[15]." Clinton, citing the same figure, spoke of "at least 100,000 (Kosovar Albanians) missing ^[16]". Later, talking about Serbian elections, Clinton said, "they're going to have to come to grips with what Mr. Milosevic ordered in Kosovo...They're going to have to decide whether they support his leadership or not; whether they think it's OK that all those tens of thousands of people were killed... ^[17]". Clinton also claimed, in the same press conference, that "NATO stopped deliberate, systematic efforts at ethnic cleansing and genocide ^[18]." Clinton even compared the events of Kosovo to the Holocaust. CNN reported, "Accusing Serbia of 'ethnic cleansing' in Kosovo similar to the genocide of Jews in World War II, an impassioned President Clinton sought Tuesday to rally public support for his decision to send U.S. forces into combat against Yugoslavia, a prospect that seemed increasingly likely with the breakdown of a diplomatic peace effort ^[19]." Clinton's State Department also claimed Serbian troops had committed genocide. The New York Times reported, "NATO bombers hunted for Serbian troops in embattled Kosovo today and the Administration said evidence of 'genocide' by Serbian forces was growing to include 'abhorrent and criminal action' on a vast scale. The language was the State Department's strongest yet in denouncing Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic ^[20]." The State Department also gave highest estimate of dead Albanians. The New York Times reported, "On April 19, the State Department said that up to 500,000 Kosovar Albanians were missing and feared dead ^[21]." However, the numbers given by Clinton and his administration have been proven false. The official NATO body count of the events in Kosovo was 2,788 (not all of them were war crimes victims) ^[22], with Slobodan Milosevic charged with the "murders of about 600 individually identified ethnic Albanians ^[23]". Critics have noted that these numbers can not be considered genocide. The headline of The Wall Street Journal, which had launched an investigation into whether genocide had occured in Kosovo, on December 31, 1999 was "War in Kosovo Was Cruel, Bitter, Savage; Genocide It Wasn’t" ^[24]. The Wall Street Journal wrote, "the U.N.'s International War Criminal tribunal has checked the largest reported sites first, and found most to contain no more than five bodies, suggesting intimate acts of barbarity rather than mass murder...Kosovo would be easier to investigate if it had the huge killing fields some investigators were led to expect. Instead, the pattern is of scattered killings ^[25]." A United Nations Court has previously ruled that Serbian troops did not commit genocide against Albanians. The court wrote "the exactions committed by Milosevic's regime cannot be qualified as criminal acts of genocide, since their purpose was not the destruction of the Albanian ethnic group ^[26]". According to BBC, "the decision was based on the 1948 Geneva convention which defines genocide as the intent 'to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such' ^[27]". Milosevic was not charged with genocide in Kosovo but the more broader "crimes against humanity" ^[28]. Spanish forensic surgeon Emilio Perez Pujol, who led the Spanish forensic team in Kosovo, gave an interview to the British paper The Sunday Times. The paper wrote, "In an outspoken interview, Pujol complained he had been sent to head a large investigation team attached to the ICTY, consisting of pathologists and police specialists, to work in the north of the country. But he found that what was publicised as a search for mass graves was 'a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines, because we did not find one—not one—mass grave'. ^[29]".

1. ^ Farah, Joseph (1999). "[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14861 The Real War Crimes]".
2. ^ Schlafly, Phyllis (Nov. 19, 1999). "[www.freerepublic.com/forum/a383733326c5a.htm Numbers Game in Kosovo]". Washington Times.
3. ^ Cohen, William (Apr. 7, 1999). " Secretary Cohen's Press Conference at NATO Headquarters".
4. ^ Doggett, Tom (May 16, 1999). " Cohen Fears 100,000 Kosovo Men Killed by Serbs". The Washington Post.
5. ^ Clinton, Bill (May 13, 1999). " Speech by President to Veterans Organizations on Kosovo".
6. ^ Clinton, Bill (June 25, 1999). " Press Conference by the President".
7. ^ ibid
8. ^ " Clinton: Serbs must be stopped now". (Mar. 23, 1999).
9. ^ Clines, Francis X (Mar. 30, 1999). "NATO Hunting for Serb Forces; U.S. Reports Signs of 'Genocide'". The New York Times, p. A1.
10. ^ Erlanger, Steven (Nov. 11, 1999). "Early Count Hints at Fewer Kosovo Deaths". The New York Times, p. A6.
11. ^ Pilger, John (Sep. 4, 2000). " US and British officials told us that at least 100,000 were murdered in Kosovo. A year later, fewer than 3,000 bodies have been found...". New Statesman.
12. ^ " The charges against Milosevic". (July 5, 2004).
13. ^ Pearl, Daniel and Block, Robert (Dec. 31, 1999). "War in Kosovo Was Cruel, Bitter, Savage; Genocide It Wasn’t". The Wall Street Journal, p. A1.
14. ^ ibid
15. ^ " Kosovo assault 'was not genocide'". (Sep. 7, 2001).
16. ^ ibid
17. ^ " Milosevic et al. - Amended Indictment".
18. ^ Swain, Jon (Oct. 31, 1999). " Lost in the Kosovo numbers game". The Sunday Times.

-- Nyr14 June 28, 2005 14:03 (UTC)

I added that to the page since there were no objections after three days.

-- Nyr14 July 1, 2005 21:28 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that we could not come to a better compromise than this unwieldy monster paragraph. I applaud your thoroughness, but it's hard to see how the resulting length clarifies the issue.

Also, I still do not believe the opening sentence is supported by the evidence following. We have evidence supporting a mistaken notion and a rather extremist accusation of false pretenses, but no corroborating evidence of false pretenses. I still believe the "false pretenses" sentence should be removed. Otherwise, I suggest including the source's name (Joseph Farah) in the body of the paragraph, instead of the vague "some critics" as it is now. Even "Some critics, including Joseph Farah..." would be superior.

I am left wondering what the standards for inclusion of opinions are. If "online newspapers" with obvious, extreme political slants are acceptable, what about blogs? What about the online diaries of 12-year-olds regurgitating their parents' opinions? Drunken, incoherent rants? How about if I happen to post my opinion on a free weblog and 10 minutes later use it as a wikipedia citation? IMO, they are all as equally ridiculous as "worldnetdaily" and "The Washington Times" as sources.

So as I mentioned earlier, for the sake of clarity, but unfortunately adding to the section's length, I'll begin writing a paragraph criticising Clinton's policies in Bosnia. With full citations, of course. Naysayer 07:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I never thought a solid fact as Clinton's birthname can have conflict, but:

His own autobiography, My Life, states:

"My mother named me William Jefferson Blythe III after my father, William Jefferson Blythe Jr., one of nine children of a poor farmer in Sherman, Texas, who died when my father was seventeen." [30]

clintonlibrary.gov supports this as well:

"Bill Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946, in Hope, Arkansas, three months after his father died in an automobile accident." [31]

Meanwhile, whitehouse.gov is adamant that it is IV (the Fourth):

"President Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe IV on August 19, 1946, in Hope, Arkansas, three months after his father died in a traffic accident." [32]

However, an old version from whitehouse.gov also states "Bill Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III" [33] [AR]

As is Britannica:

"byname of William Jefferson Clinton , original name William Jefferson Blythe IV 42nd president of the United States (1993–2001), who oversaw the country's longest peacetime economic expansion." [34]

And Encarta:

"Bill Clinton was born on August 19, 1946, in Hope, Arkansas. His given name was William Jefferson Blythe IV. He never knew his father, William Jefferson Blythe III, a traveling salesman who died in a car accident several months before Bill was born." [35]

Other less reliable sources records this differently as well.

historycentral.com:

"Bill Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe IV in Hope, Arkansas on August 19, 1946." [36]

famouspeople.com:

"Bill Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe the 3rd in Hope, Arkansas in 1946." [37]

Googlefight reports 945 for III, and 2220 for IV.

Znode 07:28, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

Suggestion: we stick with one version for now (I'd personally go with III), and somebody writes a mail to Clinton (or rather, his office), asking for clarification. As long as we don't have an answer from them, we add a comment into the article text (HTML comment, invisible to readers) that says that this bit is under dispute, and the current version should remain until we have better evidence, and direct people to the talk page. As soon as we have the answer, that should not be a matter of controvercy any more, although it might be wise to keep a note in the article text. -- AlexR 10:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will write something to Clinton's office and ask for clarification, I look forward to recieve any reply, but I believe those sources like Britanica and Encarta are not wiki and has lots of these errors, I believe his autobiography is much acceptable.-- Sina 11:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wrote firstgov.gov, Hillary Clinton, and Clinton Foundation. Hopefully at least one can give an authoritative answer. -- Znode 12:12, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

Clinton Foundation wrote back saying I need to write Clinton Library directly. Done so. -- Znode 00:27, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Authoritative answer received from Archivist of the Clinton Library, Jimmie Purvis to "go with the version in 'My Life' as being the definitive answer". Thus, III is definitive.

Bigdavediode here -- I have corrected a factual error at the end of the article. Bill Clinton was not disbarred from the US Supreme Court Bar as stated. That was false. You can see that he was suspended, and rather than contest it he resigned from the bar here: [38]

Additionally I have noticed a couple of other errors of fact that need to be changed. One is regarding the White House budgets in 1995. I will return to fix these later.

---

'He was elected twice with the highest percentage of the popular vote among his opponents (but never with a general majority). Characteristics of the period he presided as President included an economic boom not paralleled since the "Roaring 20s", the most successful war in terms of American causalities during the Kosovo Conflict, inheriting the largest American budget deficit in history from his predecessor President George H. W. Bush and turning it into the largest surplus by the end of his office.'

I'm sorry, but this is a total joke. Nice job not even adjusting deficits for inflation, much less size of the economy and population growth.

As for largest surplus, the national debt didn't even go down.

The growth rate during Clinton's first term was 2.7 percent, half a percent below the 3.2 percent growth rate under Reagan and a full percentage point below the 3.8 percent growth rate during the 1983-89 expansion.

I don't have the numbers for his second term, but the NASDAQ lost half its value during Clinton's last 9 months in office.

Since there are only four years left that could be considered so wonderful, and one of which saw massive losses in the stock market, characterizing the period he presided over as "not paralleled since the 'Roaring 20s'" is a little, um, out there. (WikiAce)

Encarta Encyclopedia seems to have a different story than yours. [39] Care to bring forth citations of your research? 67.41.186.237 23:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is 'Obvious bias' a warning for what directly follows? Could you cite sources for your claims? I researched the above claims and they appear to to be either off-point manipulations, or totally wrong.

Average economic growth rate was 2.8% under Reagan/Bush and 4.0% under Clinton. [40]

"As for largest surplus, the national debt didn't even go down."

And the Red Sox won the World Series, but the cost of hot dogs at the game stayed the same. They must be cursed! Or else that's a nonsequitur. The national debt was reduced from 1998-2000 (the only time it's been reduced since 1960), as opposed to quadrupling during the Reagan admin. [41]

As for encarta, nothing there contradicts this article. This is the gist of their section on Clinton's economy:

"In the end, Clinton’s most significant achievement as president was eliminating the federal budget deficit. When he left office, the nation was running a surplus instead of a deficit. Clinton claimed the lower interest rates that came from reducing the deficit and the low inflation produced by free trade amounted to a tax cut of hundreds of billions of dollars for Americans. His economic policies helped produce the longest period of sustained economic growth in the nation’s history."

I could go on, but... burden of proof... and all that. It's not very NPOV to select specific periods of time within an admin for the purpose of citing statistics that are not true on the whole. Naysayer 16:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/gdpchg.xls

The best real growth rate under Clinton was 4.5%. We had 4.4% growth in 2004.

Clinton growth rate is 4.1% counting 1993-2000. That does not even touch the 4.9% growth of 1961-1968. So this biggest boom since the 1920s stuff is completely unfounded.

Real debt doubled under Reagan, it did not quadruple. Again, nice job not adjusting for inflation.

NASDAQ Mar-2000 (all-time high): 5,132.52 NASDAQ Jan-2001 (Clinton leaves office): 2,770.42

NASDAQ lost half its value. If you're going to mention a boom (which I agree the LATE '90s were, but by no means the biggest since the 1920s), you should also mention the crash.

The "largest deficit" stuff is a Perot-esque lie. It doesn't adjust for inflation and size of the economy. The real way to measure deficits is as a percentage of GDP.

Back to the surplus talk... This is from the Bureau of the public debt; since we're not adjusting for inflation, what year did it go down?

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm Date Amount

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86

09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43

09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38

09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66

Answer: it didn't.

WikiAce 17:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am confused. What part of the introduction is incorrect? There is nothing that states the national debt came down. Budget surplus and national debt are two seperate economic factors. 67.41.186.237 17:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My point is that it uses nominal numbers, which is extremely misleading. This is the same kind of crap the GOP used during the campaign to say that Kerry voted for the largest tax increase in American history: the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Even just adjusting for inflation will show you that's not true in this case, but the best measure would be size of the economy, or percentage of GDP.

Also, growth in the late '90s was nothing compared to the growth in the mid-60s, so "largest boom since the Roaring 20s" should be scrapped. Really, unless you can identify that a large majority of economic indicators were greater in real terms in the '90s than in the '80s, '60s, and '50s, you should not try to compare it, as that is open for economists to debate, but rather just identify it as an economic boom in his second term.

Something like "an economic boom in his second term" and "a budget surplus for the first time since the '60s" (rather than LARGEST surplus, which is ridiculous) would be much better descriptions. WikiAce 18:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WikiAce, rather than compare apples and oranges, I suggest you write an part about national debt. Good luck with the 'adjustment for inflation' thing. What inflation rate will you use to adjust a budget surplus? The 2.5% of the Clinton admin or the 4.7% of the previous administration? [42] It would have to take into account the inflation rate previous to Clinton's taking office, but how much previous? Besides, the whole concept is confounded; the budget surplus or deficit and other economic factors influenced by the executive office are highly correlated to the inflation rate.

Ironically, your comment about a 'bust' in the nasdaq following the boom would EXACTLY parallel the 1920s. But I think that level of comparison would fall apart upon closer inspection. Naysayer 19:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The 'adjustment for inflation' 'thing' is the most fundamental concept to any economic analysis. http://minneapolisfed.org/Research/data/us/calc/index.cfm

The "largest deficit" is in nominal numbers. The "largest surplus" is in nominal numbers. Really, even adjusting for inflation is not enough, because of population growth; far more relevant is percentage of GDP. The 'unparalleled' economic boom is just an opinion. Far better to say 'massive stock market rally' and 'sizeable real GDP growth.'

An example of comparing apples to oranges would be saying the early '90s budget deficits were greater than the World War II deficits, which is of course, I'm sure you're aware, absurd. WikiAce 19:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a huge can of worms. You're suggesting using the Consumer Price Index as the sole indicator of value in comparing gov’t projected surpluses in dollar amounts across decades. There are myriad problems with this. For one, it insists that projected surpluses be translated into real dollars, or (I'm assuming) be rendered meaningless. But that's a false choice scenario.

The change in a given period of time in the number of apples bought for a dollar is different from the change in the same given period of time in the number of oranges bought for a dollar. (Let's not even get into fruit imported from your local banana republic!) You may be able to overlook that for a consumer, but governments are different. Gov't spending is not directly affected by consumer prices, unless the money is given back in the form of refunds, since gov'ts don't usually "buy" things in the sense that consumers do. But even if government spending were comparable to consumer spending, that does not mean that a budget surplus would be so comparable. For example, GDP may in fact increase as a result of a budget surplus, thereby reducing the ratio because of its own success. So the surplus as percent of the GDP is confounded.

Also, if you’re going to go through with the adjustment to a budget surplus, then you also have to add the adjusted value of the deficit inherited from the previous administration, both adjusted for inflation. But now we’re talking relative numbers since neither number was produced in a vacuum… So what inflation rate do we use? IOW, the amount ‘in the hole’ added to the height of the hill. This would mitigate the size of the Reagan/Bush I deficits, but increase the Clinton surplus and Bush II deficit.

Anyway, this all seems like a huge digression (even adjusted for inflation) just to tweak one word ("largest") that is not literally untrue. I don't think your claim of “obvious bias” is supported by your argument… even if it was not “the largest American budget deficit in history”. Naysayer 22:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't forgot all of the corruption by WorldCom, Global Crossing and Enron to help rip the economy apart that, thankfully, Bush stabalized in his term by bringing them to justice. If it wasn't for Bush, even if the economy rocketed in the 90's, it wouln't even exist now at all. Plus most of those numbers were misleading because allot of these companies lied about their finances to boost their stock market revenue creating a dotcom stock market bubble. That just goes to show the 90's was based off of greed and selfishness because people were more concered about living off of the stock market then admitting the corruption and they turned a blind eye to it.

I have modified the end here to reflect more of what was going on in the tech industry a the time.

"inheriting at-the-time the largest American budget deficit from his predecessor President George H. W. Bush and turning it into the largest surplus by the end of his office, although a stock market bubble and yet undiscovered Enron corruption helped to drag it down some at the end of his term."

First of all, why is everyone arguing over a president and his supposed magical control over how the economy is transfigured. The only thing the President is supposed to do is make sure there is no corruption in it and allow for it to grow unabated. That might have some minor effect but it's private industry that leads the way here last time I checked the stock market quotes. I think Clinton failed here because of the massive corruption of it at the end of his term. There was a massive stock market boom because of Silicon Valley and Bill Gates. You can't attribute a 10,000 market from a 2,000 market in 8 years to one man. I don't think anyone would accept that honer alone. If anything we should probably be praising Bill Gates and Intel here. It's POV on the front page to say that Bush somehow hindered the economy with no facts to back that statement up. Especially when it was going back to normal at the end of his term and it would of sky-rocketed with Bush or Clinton at the helm. Silicon Valley should take credit here. Stop playing favorites everyone and look at the BIG picture. It's wrong not to let people know that there was a gient tech boom in the 90's because of the Pentium processor, cell phones and Broadband technology.

Ok, I think I have it balanced enough so everyone is happy: "He was elected twice with the highest percentage of the popular vote among his opponents (but never with a general majority). Characteristics of the period during his administration included the lengthiest economic boom in American history coupled with a stock market bubble, a NATO peacekeeping operation with the Kosovo Conflict, inheriting at-the-time the largest American budget deficit from his predecessor President George H. W. Bush and turning it into the largest surplus by the end of his office, although the National debt remained relatively the same."

I have been accused of vandalism and have been threatened with banishment over the following :

(the changes pertained to Legacy and Economy)

Is any deviance from established liberal orthodoxy "vandalism"? If so, then I won't ever bother to stick around. You all can have your jolly old time free of any dissenting points of view. -- Gdr1998 03:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your bad-faith reverting of your old edits as 24.125.72.210 under your new user name designed to push your agenda are vandalism because you continue.-- The Grza 03:27, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Signing up for a user name exhibits "bad faith"? The bad faith is that you're making baseless accusations of vandalism. Edit away my changes til your face turns blue, but knock it off with the vandalism charges. -- Gdr1998

Signing up for a user name is not bad faith; reverting the overwhelmingly POV statements you made after several users have removed them without so much a peep to justify your edits on the talk page is bad-faith editing, and continuing to revert is vandalism. -- The Grza 03:39, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

My content was removed without so much as a peep of explanation either. In fact, the vandalism charge was sent to the IP address. That's why I created an account - to respond to the specious charge. -- Gdr1998

The vandalism comment made on your IP page referred to your vandalism of the William Tecumseh Sherman page. We're discussing this page. Also, I don't think this has much to do with Bill Clinton anymore. Any problem with moving this to my user talk page?-- The Grza 03:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I did not vandalize Sherman. I wanted to see what happened with an edit (my first edit ever), and then quickly put it back as it was. Here's before and after: [43]

The fact is, I was accused of vandalism on Clinton, because I pointed out that the prosperity quickly came to an end with the collapse of the stock market, just like in the 1920s. I've seen people say pretty nasty things about Clinton, but the bubble stock market on his watch is pretty much a fact that is beyond any dispute. -- Gdr1998

If you'll notice the message left on the IP talk page, it is a template specifically designed for people like you and a special link to show you to the Sandbox so you can test as much as you like without screwing up actual pages. You did not, as you say, simply point out that the economy resembled the 1920's (It didn't by the way, economics is a little more complicated then Economy Goes Up, Economy Comes Down) and the crash of 1929 (clearly comparable to the Internet and manufacturing bubbles bursting). You put silly qualifier quotes around "prosperity" and inserted a nonsense description that had nothing to do with the article. Again, and I'm not sure you're understanding this, so I'll write it one more time, although you could just as easily move your eyeballs up and read it again because I don't know if I could be any clearer, but here goes; the vandalism I was describing was when you reverted back to these POV edits in order to enforce your opinionm, edits removed by three other users. -- The Grza 04:29, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I archived all conversations that seemed to be finished. I wasn't involved in any of them, so any parties involved in those discussions please check to make sure I didn't move anything unresolved.-- The Grza 03:39, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

There are allot of misleading statements out there stating that the 'affair' was the most importent aspect of the impeachment which should be more covered up. The impeachment was the mishandling of the Paula Jones trial. If people dwell on other things then that it becomes misleading to stear away from the truth.

I don't understand your point.-- The Grza 17:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think the article should emphasize Paula Jones over Monica Lewinski (or maybe a separate more neutral 'Clinton impeachment' page) because it was that case in which purjery was commited not some sex affair. I don't think it's good to talk about a sex affair on the top of a President wikipage with a link to explicit sex scenerios. The sex doesn't matter it's that it was lied about during a rape trial. He was impeached because he commited purjery and obstructed justice. He was not impeached because he was having fun gettinng laid. That's just a ploy to make people think that the mean old Republicans don't want people to 'have a good time.'

"That depends on what the meaning of is is…" is quoted in this section. This is a widespread misquotation, Clinton never uttered these words. So, I am removing them. See, e.g. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton Derex 4 July 2005 01:47 (UTC)

Palllllease. Let's not cast him in this 'All things to all people' light; while that was the image portrayed often through a Spin city like atmosphere and seemingly endless promises and rhetoric most of his policies were very Liberal if not Radical and were never passed. I can't see a serious argument against this. It was another Political winger type candidate who failed to bridge the gap of bipartisanship when the country needed moderation most. At the end the gap was wider then ever. I also fault the Republicans for nominating Bob Dole because he was very much on the right. Although Bush might be a conservative he has passes allot of bills most recently using moderate techniques.

Examples of Liberalism:

• Universal health care
• High taxes on the upper middle class and rich
• Unfettered Affirmative action
• Late Term Abortion
• Small Military
• Little to no Internet Pornography regulation.

I have modified 'Moderate' to 'Liberal' with some extra MAJOR liberal policies like Universal healthcare, which is extrmeley radical if not communist (although it ould be nice if someday money didn't exist which I think might happen with tech, maybe), in the beginning, where it said he was a moderate, which I think is fare.

---

  "......if not communist....."

I would just like to say that Communists were a political party that advocated Stalinist/Lenninist/Marxist/etc SOCIALISM. So, I think you would probably want to replace "Communist" with "Socialist". Furthermore, of the Western, Industrialized, 1st World Nations (G7) who are considered to be "Capitolist", the USA is the only one without some form of Nationalized Health Care, thus comparing "Universal Healthcare" to "Communism" is a bit misleading, seeing that just because the former Communist governments of the USSR and the ones of Eastern Europe all had "Universal Healthcare" does not mean that Canada, Japan, and Germany (FR) are also Communist, they are very much Demacratic/Capitolistic Republics to a greater extent.

Thank you,

Thoolie

---

And it's been changed back. Liberal? Perhaps only to the folks far on the right. Clinton was (and is) a moderate; your examples aren't necessarily true. For example, the Communications Decency Act was passed during his presidency (and overturned by the courts); a liberal would have vetoed it. No Liberal would have tolerated the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" nonsense or the rollback of the welfare system. I don't know if Clinton ever said or did anything regarding late term abortion. Etc. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 5 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)

All of the things listed in the article are liberal: education, free trade, handgun, environment. Why did you delete [Universal healthcare]? That was the major point of the administraion. Your're POV. Your're most likley a radical and see these things as moderate. It doesn't matter how YOU view things but the neutral truth. Read: NPOV

He signed the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act." which was part of the Conservative's "Contract with America" but is unpopular with socialists and unwed mothers. That's still not enough fuel to make him a moderate. I'm a moderate and I know. http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/issues/v66/n6/welfare.6o.html http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-11.htm

He passed the Communications Decency Act which was struck down by the Supreme court. This act was way to extreme and just a pamper, not enough. That's not getting allot done to protect people violated by pornagraphy. Example: Not to promote Bush but he has found minor ways to restrict child pornaography and Internet Porn. Also putting porn into the xxx domain probably is a real good thing. Also the FCC has restricted allot of radio and T.V. pronography that got seriously out of hand during the Clinton administration. I agree that a liberal wouldn't want that Communications Act but I think liberals can agree that most of the policies I listed are for the better.

Clinton vetoed late term abortion bans http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/07/23/lateterm.abortion/

Also, no moderate nor conservative tolerated " Don't ask don't tell" either because it was another illogical 'do nothing' policy to temporally please his liberal constituents; and mod/conservs were the ones that talked about that most on the radio. I think I remember liberal talk shows laughing it off but not condemning it like the conservatives. The liberals laughed it off because it fit there agenda of Gays in the military. I admit that Clinton didn't get allot done of what the liberals wanted and maybe that's why you're casting him into a moderate. But then I would call him a Swing candidate because moderates solve issues on both sides of the fence. I do admit that it is hard to tell where he was on most issues anyway because he seemed to want to please everyone, but mostly he took advantage of radical ideas on the liberal spectrum. To put 'moderate' you might as well put Bush as a moderate because he has done allot more for the Liberals then Clinton did for thew Conservatives.

• Well, I disagree -- and it would seem others do too, since other people (not me, I've not touched any of your edits) have consistantly reverted your "liberal" characterization. It doesn't matter how you view things either -- you'll find that you'll need to build consensus here for your change; it's better to do it here than to get into edit wars. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 7 July 2005 16:20 (UTC)

In my opinion, Bill Clinton is a liberal. However, the word "liberal", "moderate", and "conservative" are quite subjective, e.g. to a far-left Marxist Bill Clinton would be seen as a conservative. Due to the labels being so subjective they should be removed or both should be included and be phrased differently. "Some see Clinton as a liberal while other view his postiion as being a moderate." -- Nyr14 July 7, 2005 19:00 (UTC)

• Good point. Perhaps "Within the Democratic Party, Clinton is generally considered a moderate -- in fact, the DLC was formed specifically to overcome the 'liberal' label which had turned into a pejorative during the Reagan and Bush administrations. By many measures, he was the most conservative Democratic president of the 20th century.". Or something like that. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆

There can't be POV. Most of the stuff he did was Liberal. A liberal and not a centrist would want Universal Healthcare with heavy taxes on the rich and upper middle class and shtinkiing the militarty down to nothing. These were the two MAJOR points of the administration not the stuff listed. I find it very protective to list education and handgun stuff over Universal Healthcare and shrinking the military a great deal when those were the major points of the admin. I sense a large POV bias with that. Put in Universal Healthcare and small military and I don't care if you leave it centrist.

by Europen standards clinton was right wing. By UK standards he was slightly right of centre (and way too nationalistic but so is most of the planet by uk standards). Geni 17:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

no even by European standards Clinton is a hard leftist, a radical on many leftist talking points. That he sometimes is seen as moderate is because there was a republican controlled congress who at least managed to cut some of the radicalism off. -- Marcel1975 19:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

please the guy is slightly to the right of Tony Blair. Arthur scargill is a hard leftist. Clinton is not Geni 17:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly where I am supposed to report these things, but an article on Bukkake has been inserted into the middle of the article on Bill Clinton.

I changed "political moderate" to "political centrist," because I think it is biased to label one political ideology as more moderate than another.

Some people consider liberalism to be more moderate, for instance, while others consider liberalism a form of radicalism.

Radicalism is basically a dirty word in politics, and ergo calling someone a moderate is a way of passing judgment on them.

I'd rather just stay out of that type of argument for the sake of Wikipedia's non-bias policy - I think 99% of people can agree that Clinton was a "centrist".

Response: I doubt that the percentage is that high, but it is probably as objective a statement as is possible under the circumstances, as evidenced by attacks on Clinton from both "left" and "right." However, given that, it probably should be pointed out that "moderate" is generally understood as a synonym for "centrist." -- Midnite Critic 05:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The suggestion that 99% of people think Clinton is centrist (or moderate) is absurd and POV bias. About 1/2 of America (the conservative half) thinks Clinton is a liberal. The other half (the liberal half) says he is a centrist. We now know what side you stand on.

-- Agiantman 12:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Bill Clinton is definantly not a Centrist, being one myself. Bill Clinton's a moderate liberal. Calling Clinton a Centrist is as offensive to most Centrists as it'd be calling George W Bush a Centrist.

It should be changed to moderate liberal, or just plain liberal, which's what he was/is.

And calling him a liberal is offensive to most liberals (not that I'm one). In my opinion, he is best described as a pragmatic centrist, as his famous political stretegy of "triangulation" attests. Look at the top hit in the google search for triangulation & clinton. I quote "Remember 'triangulation' - Clinton's strategy of positioning himself between the much-hated Democrats in Congress and the much-hated Republicans in Congress? It was how he got re-elected. You didn't have to like Clinton, so long as you disliked him less than the other choices. The triangle put him in the middle." That sounds pretty much like a centrist to me. But, as that word offends the anon editor above who claims to be a centrist, let's call him a communist. Derex 16:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

His methodolgy was definitely 'centrist', which is basically synonymous with 'moderate' in the political environment of the last 25 years. Perhaps the two terms were divergent back when 'conservative' meant a "hands-off" approach to government, but have converged since that term became a different kind of activism.

Clinton and the DLC's approach to elections was coalition-building and capturing the center, as opposed, for example, to Bush II's approaching of appealing to the his conservative base. Presidential candidates are stuck emphasizing one approach or the other while limiting damage on the flanks.

Clinton's governing style reflected, of course, the Democratic Party's agenda. However, we can tell his centrist stance if only because both sides found something to dislike him for. There were almost as many anti-Clinton rants from the Left as there were from the Right. Someone said free trade was a liberal issue. Think about Clinton signing NAFTA. The unions are still furious at him over that. There was true despair on the Left that American politics had failed because even a Democratic president was just a Republican in sheep's clothing. Hence, the Nader vote in 2000. Other examples of Clinton's centrist/moderate politics/policy have been offered and I agree. Naysayer 16:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Who from the left ranted about Clinton? Who? Please name names. I never saw it. The unions? Give me a break. No president enjoyed more support from the unions than Clinton. And if opposition to NAFTA is a liberal litmus test, then Pat Buchanon is King of the Liberals. G.W. Bush is for an open border with Mexico. Does that make him a moderate? His dad, G.H.W. Bush, gave us a massive tax increase. Is Bush the elder a moderate? I suggest that a better indication of a President's politics is to look at his appointments. Did Clinton appoint moderates or liberals?-- Agiantman 01:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

and how do we determine that? and if we can determine that, why not apply that same clever approach to clinton? also, if you want to know liberal opinion, cruise over to democraticunderground.com and see what they say about the DLC. there is no love among liberals for the DLC, and the DLC was clinton's powerbase. also, chew on this: clinton was elected governor of arkansas 4 times. now, i don't know where you come from. but, i'm from around there. and a liberal will get elected governor in the deep south when bush raises taxes on billionares. Derex 02:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

If you aren't familiar with another liberal Southern governor, please allow me to introduce you to Ann Richards. The DLC is an organization of pragamatic liberals. Their membership today includes Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Hillary Clinton. (See Democratic_Leadership_Council) Please do not suggest that John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are not liberals. And I just visited democraticunderground.com [44]. Not only was I unable to find criticism of the DLC, I found only love and praise for Bill Clinton and DLC members Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry. -- Agiantman 03:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

(a) you still haven't explained how to identify a liberal (b) sure, for texas she's a liberal. but, she ain't liberal. i'm hanging around san fransisco these days, i know what liberal is & that ain't even close to it. (c) i have no idea what happens to be on DU at the moment, but trust me they are vitriolic about the DLC. just read it for a while; that's the pulse of liberal america. it's the equivalent to freerepublic (where one goes to hear conservatives rant). (d) hillary isn't a liberal either; though she's probably a bit left of bill. (e) the single most famous thing about clinton's political strategy was so-called triangulation. he was not an ideologue; he was a pragmatist. he went for the center. compare & contrast to g.w. bush, who makes it a point of pride never to compromise. now that's an ideologue, that's a conservative. clinton is hardly the democratic equivalent of bush. more like the equivalent of an arlen specter. .... trivia - who first proposed a universal health care plan? that old liberal rascal richard nixon. Derex 03:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Even if the democraticunderground.com hates the DLC, so what? This article is about Bill Clinton. Like all liberal groups, the democraticunderground.com loves Bill Clinton. Liberal Democrats such as Kerry and Hillary Clinton join the DLC so that can appear as more centrist to make them more electable. Their political views don't change. Bill C. just learned that trick two decades before the others. It is very funny to me that Republicans generally want to be identified as conservative (even when they aren't), but Democrats will do everything they can to avoid being called liberal (even when they are). -- Agiantman 10:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

explain to me how you know a liberal. welfare reform, free trade, tough on crime, balanced budget, the v-chip, deregulation of banking/trucking/electricity, requiring for benefit/cost analysis for new regulations, paperwork reduction act, etc. if this is the liberal agenda, then i concede that clinton was indeed a liberal. why exactly do you think St. Ralph Nader ran in 2000? cause clinton/gore weren't liberal. at the Republican convention, his opponent Bob Dole remarked of Clinton, "[he] has tried of late to be a good Republican and I expect him to be here tonight." Derex 15:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to know that, too. I agree that both parties are generally fiscally liberal, but I doubt that any of us label people as liberals and conservatives solely because of fiscal policy (especially since both parties are nearly identical on that front. Also, have you thought about the fact that liberal and conservative are (apparently) relative terms? A "conservative" in San Francisco or the EU is what you'd probably call a centrist or moderate liberal. Since views vary so much (from place to place in the U.S., even) on where the left and right markers exist on this oversimplified political spectrum, maybe it would be more fair to just explain where Clinton stood in objective terms (for this, against this, etc.). -216

This is appropriate because Clinton extremely well known for these quotes. In fact, many of these quotes have taken on a life of their own, being the subject of Saturday Night Live skits and referred to extensively. Many of these quotes are known by the general public, and this is so far more than any other public figure. Wiki should address these quotes. The only question is whether to include it in on a separate quote page. Based on the arguments made at Ann Coulter, many believe that such quotes are appropriate for the main article. Thus it is important to find consistency in discussing related issues across related pages. -- Noitall 22:38, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't have issues with a few quote, however I think we should limit the scope and number of quotes, for example I don't think we need 24 quotes nor quotes like ":18. You'd think he was running for First Lady.", I think we should limit the quotes sections to quotes that are directly relevant to either the rest of the article or to major events in his career. BTW, one must appreciate the irony of using something from Ann Coulter as a reasoning behind a decision for Bill Clinton :) Jtkiefer 22:47, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Well put. I also wouldn't mind a few appropriately chosen quotes on this page, and I'm glad you caught the irony :) -- kizzle 22:49, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

-->::*Excellent! We are all in agreement! To quote from kizzle, "I don't mind shortening the amount of quotes, my ideal range would be 5-10." -- Noitall 22:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, as Jpgordon points out, you are disrupting wikipedia to make a point see WP:POINT. Further, you are completely misrepresenting the debate on Talk:Ann Coulter. Quit having a tantrum & try engaging in a debate over there. Derex 22:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, it seems like we came to agreement above. As to your point, you have read my response and apparently want to make the same ridiculous and hypocritical statement on every Wiki page, including my personal talk page. It is important to find consistency in discussing related issues across related pages. This is done all the time. You POVers can't address any of the arguments, at least consistently, so you try to avoid the debate entirely. -- Noitall

Fascinating. I am trying to avoid debate? Anyone is welcome to go have a look at Talk:Ann_Coulter#status_of_quotations and see what nonsense and hypocrisy that is. Derex 23:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

both Derex and I said before that the amount of quotes could be shortened. What you are arguing is that the simple inclusion of quotes by themselves constitute POV. -- kizzle 23:04, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• I am writing about this page, but you seem to be concerned about another. I addressed that page because I realized that your arguments apply to more than one page. On this page, your words seem to support adding a Quotations section on this page. BTW, if "you idiot" is the strongest, most intelligent argument kizzle can make, then Derex ought to start searching for a new partner. -- Noitall 23:18, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, I'm still waiting (actually begging) for you to make any argument at all. Derex 23:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I have been making arguments, but you seem to be "willfully deaf, dumb, and blind" to them. Case in point, I point out that your problem with the inclusion of quotes is not the number of quotes but rather that the sheer inclusion of which constitutes POV. You then, in turn, focus upon the "idiot" portion and ignore the actual argument, citing there is no argument. So I withdraw and apologize for saying "idiot." Now deal with the argument. -- kizzle 23:24, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• I couldn't care less what's happening over at the Ann Coulter article. Has no bearing on this article. Certainly, inclusion of quotes is not, per se, POV; the act is entirely neutral. However, the selection of quotes can be POV; in my opinion, Noitall selected quotes to make Clinton look bad. Now, if this were an article entitled List of Bill Clinton quotes that people mock or poke fun at, it would be proper to include that list. (See Bushisms for a quotation-less article on the subject.) jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 23:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, the quotes were derived from neutral sources that compiled them. There are a lot of them. "Clinton quotes" alone gets over 5000 hits [45], and that is just the beginning. And anyone else is free to add their favorite quotes. I did not make this an exclusive list. If you think these quotes are selective to make it POV, feel free to add your favorites. On this page, it seems like Derex and kizzle and I are in agreement, right? -- Noitall 23:47, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• • Of what possible interest in it that there are 5000 Google hits for the phrase "Clinton quotes"? Of course there are a lot of Clinton quotes; he was President for 8 years, and is long-winded as hell. At any rate, your entire inclusion was for the purpose of making a point; as such, it was rightfully deleted; if someone else wants to introduce an NPOV collection of Clinton quotes to the already too long article, they're welcome to, and then we'll see what the consensus is regarding whether to keep them in the article or not. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you aren't the grand poobah of Wiki editors. If it belongs, and it currently seems there is consensus that it belongs, then it should be included. As I said, if you or any editor think additonal quotes would make it less POV, in your opinion, be my guest. -- Noitall 02:56, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

What is the consistent fear of Wikiquote? Why isn't that enough for you people? My position is that there is a Wikiquote for a reason; the only quotes that should appear on an article are maybe those for lesser known but well-quoted individuals in order to provide more information about them or their speaking style (not applicable here) or a few choice quotes of massive historical significance, i.e. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky", a statement that touched off a year long political explosion in America. Something like the "Is is" quote is too small and unimportant to be placed on, as Jpgordon pointed out so correctly, an incredibly long page. Finally, beyond the simple question of quotes, this edit is ugly, completely inconsistent with WikiStyle, horribly POV and clearly designed to pick a fight. Noitall needs to knock it off in my humble opinion. -- The Grza 03:04, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

POV is POV. If the same issue is POV on one page, it is POV on another. If Wiki policy is to put quotes on Wikiquote, then you should not just be making this selective argument on your favorite page. After all, that is what this is about. I want consistency and NPOV on every page, not just on my "favorite" page. If there is no NPOV, there is no "knocking it off." -- Noitall 03:13, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about. What is the inconsistency with placing a few quotes (Using a "consistent" WikiStyle, by the way) of major importance on this page and taking the minor and unattributed quotes to Wikiquote where they already exist, not only in a better format, but with context and citation. And what are you speaking about "favorite" pages? I'm not clear on any of what you just said. This isn't my favorite page, this isn't even a page I'm particularly interested in. I want to keep your attempt to "make a point" (NOT WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS USED FOR! AAAARGH!) out of this article. I agree with the points laid out on the Coulter page, as I do for this one. You insisting on violating your own suggestions for policy for no other reason then some completely juvenile attempt to create a mess and be annoying. Knock it off. -- The Grza 03:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

It appears that you jumped into an argument without attempting to understand the issues. I understand your point. It is a point that I formerly made. But my more important point is NPOV, which is what Wiki is for. I do not understand your statement, "I agree with the points laid out on the Coulter page." You are either being consistent with your argument here by insisting that quotes go to a Wikiquote page, or you are being inconsistent. I can't figure out from your statement which position you have adopted. Instead of focusing on any objection you have to me, however, it might be more useful, if you quit focusing on people and focused on proper editing and consistent policies. -- Noitall 03:38, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

One of the central arguments of why a quote section should receive different treatment on an article like Bill Clinton and that of Ann Coulter, is that Bill Clinton is known primarily for being the president, and thus his article focuses upon his actions as president. Ann Coulter is known for her polemic writing style, of which quotations show evidence. The quote list you want on Bill Clinton would be much more appropriate on pages like Al Franken, Jim Hightower, Rush Limbaugh, and such, both liberal and conservative pundits. As for "It might be more useful, if you quit focusing on people and focused on proper editing and consistent policies..." Thanks for the laugh! :) -- kizzle 06:11, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• You are quite misguided. There is no such thing as a "known primarily for" standard, only a "known for" standard. Clinton's quotes are far more known, while only Coulter lovers and haters (basically, that is the Wiki population) know her quotes. Remember, POV is POV. Don't make absurd distinctions. -- Noitall 06:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah but of the information we know overall about Clinton, his quotatations make up far less importance then, lets say, legislation he enacted, military actions, presidential campaigns, which is enough to fill several books. For Ann Coulter and the rest of the partisan pundits, all you really can say about them is what they have said before. Regardless, I am not opposed to having a certain amount of quotes on this page, just a little bit less than what's on Coulter's page due to the wealth of information on Clinton and that an attempt, like on Coulter's page of that I have asked about a million times for people to supply balancing quotes, to balance out the quotes is made. It's really not crazy to assume we treat an article on a U.S. president and on some right-wing nutjob commentator differently. If we only stooped to your distinction of "known for", this article would be the size of several books. That's why, for the amount of information's sake, we say "known primarily for", unless you are truly arguing both that there is no hierarchy of important information to include and no threshold to exclude information at the bottom of this hierarchy. I wonder why you didn't choose George W. Bush to make your point, as he is far more quotable then Clinton. I don't quite get your point that a point of view is a point of view. Where is the point of view? -- kizzle 15:06, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

You have mostly acknowledged my points, including the potential for POVness regarding "some right-wing nutjob commentator." -- Noitall 16:20, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wait, so now you are OK with quotes on Coulter's page as long as their balanced with pro-quotes, and that there can be more quotes on a page like Coulter's, Franken's, etc. than U.S. presidents? -- kizzle 18:28, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• No. For the record, I am for consistency and NPOV on all articles. Here is my preference, in order of preference:

1. move list of quotes to Wikiquote and only insert quotes into paragraphed articles on the appropriate topic

2. include quotation section and include notable quotes on each topic; to ensure NPOV, none should be rejected unless duplicative or inaccurate

3. include quotation section and include laundry list; to ensure NPOV, none should be rejected unless inaccurate -- Noitall 18:57, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Make some proposals on this page as to what you want to do about a quotes section and let others chime in. -- kizzle 21:15, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

No, not until the issue is finally decided, is it 1., 2., or 3.??-- Noitall 17:10, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

It has been five years since the five year disbarment started so did he get his law license back? Anyone have an answer yet?

QuestioningAuthority 16:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

<opinion>but all that hogwash about his legacy being tainted... Clinton was 10 times the president Bush was, and I don't know how many times I've heard people wishing they could have voted for him a third. Lets see what approval ratings Bush leaves office with, my money's on the mid-30's. </opinion> -- kizzle 23:42, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Clinton did not take his job seriously... he was in it for that babes... and he couldn't even do that right. He was lucky that there was this thing called internet that catapaulted the economy to the stratosphere. 68% said they will remember him for scandal not accomplishment. WHere I live he came in third behind Perot. -- Tlotz

Please...look at the accomplishments of Clinton as opposed to Bush, it's not even a comparison. And riding an internet surplus is better than plummeting that surplus into a huge defecit. Just because someone has an affair doesn't mean his entire presidential career is tainted. Look at JFK. -- kizzle 00:07, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

What acomplishment? FYI there was no surplus...only a projected surplus... it was a surplus on paper... when the dotcom bubble burst the projected revenues didn't happen and we went into a recession. Also it wasn't just an affair it was pointing his wicked finger into the camera and proclaiming to the world..."I have never had sexual relations with that woman... Ms. Lewinsky." Clinton never had to face a crisis like 9-11.-- Tlotz

---

         Please see:
                     World Trade Center Bombing (6 dead, 1000+ wounded)
                     Oklahoma City Bombing (168 dead, 800+ wounded)
                     1998 U.S. Embassy Bombings (225 dead, 1000+ wounded)

(althought the death toll in any one of these circumstances is less than that of 9/11 deaths, it is my opinion that either of the first two (if not the third) can be considered as "Major Crises". I believe that the magnatude of the crisis is greatly dependant on the reaction to the crisis as well as the physical and human damage that is done.)

---

Ignoring your own treasury secretary's advice about how to fix the economy by satisfying the base and sticking to tax cuts doesn't exactly help the economy either. -- kizzle 05:44, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Clinton's legacy is getting BJ's in the oval office from his intern and then lying about. That's what he will be remembered for in 500 years. -- Agiantman 13:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Just like JFK, huh. I guess we'll see, maybe you'll be right and he'll be remembered for lying just like Bush's legacy will be remembered for lying to get us into war. -- kizzle 17:06, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, I do not remember JFK getting BJ's in the oval office from his intern, lying about it, and getting impeached. JFK's indescretions came to light long after his presidency and generally did not involve preying on interns, volunteers, and low level clerks under his chain of command. JFK will be remembered for his assassination and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Billy C. will be forever known for the BJs, the lying and the impeachment.-- Agiantman 03:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, we shall see. I'd much rather have a president lie about his sex life than lie about taking us to war. But that's just me. I guess people must like BJs if he left with the highest approval rating in modern U.S. history. -- kizzle 06:27, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't just a "lie about his sex life." He lied to deny justice to woman who was suing him for sex discrimination. And his "sex life" was occuring in his workplace on company time with a young subordinate. Also, the comment that someone lied to take us to war is utter nonsense. No one lied like Billy C. did. -- Agiantman 21:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Downing Street Memo, Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, and various other sources may disagree with you about characterizing the lie as "utter nonsense." btw, calling him Billy C... did you make that up all by yourself? -- kizzle 22:02, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

How silly! No source, including the Downing Street Memo, Richard Clarke, and Paul O'Neill, indicate Bush knew there were no WMD's but said there was. Nearly everyone on the planet thought they would be found quickly after the war began. We waited so long -- I think they were moved to Syria. I plan to include these Clinton quotes in this article. Since you think the issue of Iraq and WMD's is so important, I am sure you will agree that it's important for these quotes to be included. Tell me what you think.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 Source: CNN

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." — President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 Source:[ CNN -- Agiantman 02:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

No, but respectively they said Bush was trying to justify invading Iraq by fixing policy around the facts, that Bush was planning to blame Iraq before we even had a plan for invading Afghanistan, and that Bush had talked about going into Iraq long before 9/11. You can come to an indeterminate amount of conclusions based upon the quantity of evidence the CIA has, and if you cherry-pick to support your claim, as Bush did, you can basically make it say anything.

One more thing... I've never heard of someone threaten to put in factually correct info into an article. LOL! :) Put the quotes in if you want and make sure to cite. -- kizzle 16:23, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

There is already a similar quote in the article, so it's probably redundant. But, Kizzle, check your grammar on that change you just made. It looks like you created an agreement problem - plural to singular.-- Agiantman 21:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

On the poll as he was leaving office, the statement was added, "(Note: Of the 1,018 respondents, 47% identified as being a Clinton supporter)" There is no purpose that I can see to this statement. It is not noteworthy. There is no allegation that the poll is not statistically valid. If it is noteworthy, it would only be that the number 47% was higher or lower than expected. -- Noitall 22:40, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Then just leave it in. As Mystery Pollster says, identifying party ID in any poll (of which this is the closest we have) is very important for the reader. -- kizzle 22:42, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with identifying the percentage of Clinton supporters. I do have a problem with the bad grammar. You wrote, "Of the 1,018 respondents, 47% identified as being a Clinton supporter)" A supporter? Which supporter was it? James Carville? Paul Begala? You need agreement. If it's respondents, it needs to be supporters. If it's respondent, it's supporter. Any grammarians out there?-- Agiantman 02:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, now someone is changing the issue already decided. It is irrelevant to state the size of the poll (if so, state all the criteria, margin of error, etc) and thus it should not be in there. We agree that it is notable to state the percent Clinton supporters and are now working on the English. -- Noitall 02:18, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Who decided this? K, will put in the criteria, margin of error, etc. when I have a bit of time. -- kizzle 21:04, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it would be accurate, but totally useless since nobody cares. -- Noitall 04:58, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I care. -- kizzle 05:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Agiantman: Why do you think that it is not essential in understanding Clinton never received a majority of the vote to mention that there was a significant third party candidate? -- kizzle 04:06, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

There is a potential "significant" third party candidate in every presidential election. John Anderson was a stronger candidate in 1980, but it didn't stop Reagan from attaining a majority. Also, Perot was a conservative who siphoned votes away from Bush, not Clinton. Face it: the love of your life, Bill Clinton, couldn't get 50% in both of his elections. Stop making excuses. -- Agiantman 04:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

the love of your life, Bill Clinton, couldn't get 50% in both of his elections. Stop making excuses.

Please refrain from making personal attacks in the future. Thanks :)

I'm not sure how you figure that Anderson was a stronger candidate in 1980. Anderson received 5,720,437 votes [46], whereas Ross Perot received 19,741,065 votes [47] and 8,085,402 votes [48] in the 1992 and 1996 elections, of which the '92 election was over 3 times the amount of Anderson.

Regardless, a justification for excluding mention of third party is still absent from your answer. -- kizzle 04:54, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

The strength of one's candidacy is relative to one's opponent. A weak 3rd party candidate like Perot received a higher percentage & vote total than Anderson because of weaker opponents. Remember, Perot withdrew from the race because he claimed Republicans had doctored a photo to make his daughter look like a lesbian. LOL! BTW, I got a kick out of your claim that describing Bill Clinton as "the love of your life" is a personal attack. LMAO! -- Agiantman 05:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Glad I could be of entertainment :) In case you have some confusion as to why that was a personal attack, you have, in calling Bill Clinton "the love of my life":

• Assumed bias on my part before assuming good faith.
• Implied negative connotations through "love of my life", possibly indicative of homophobia.
• A paradigm of an Ad hominem logical fallacy, in which you address my personal character rather than the merits of my argument.

No problem, sometimes its hard to catch all personal attacks, so no hard feelings.

For your claim that "the strength of one's candidacy is relative to one's opponent," I still don't follow how Anderson who gets less than one-third the votes of Ross Perot is somehow a stronger opponent. What defines strength of an opponent if not popular support then? How is Anderson stronger than Perot if he received relatively a minor amount of votes? -- kizzle 05:37, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I know you are too young to remember John Anderson's candidacy. Let me make this simple. If John Anderson ran instead of Ross Perot in 1992, he would have received more votes because he would have been a better (read:stronger) candidate. Perot was merely a nut who withdrew from the race and just siphoned off Republicans who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Bush the Dad. Comprendez?-- Agiantman 05:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

What I now understand is that your basis that Anderson is a stronger candidate than Perot is based upon pure unjustified (in our discussions, at least) speculation. Consequently, I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree in our interpretations. My opinion is that the enormous discrepancy between Perot's vote count and that of Anderson's (18 million to 5 million votes) is a significant detractor for those who believe as you do. But like you say, I was "too young to remember." On a side note, it's interesting that throughout our conversations, you have at some point brought up my youth in almost every discussion.-- kizzle 05:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Silence is golden. -- kizzle 21:57, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I have been editing Wikipedia since about August of last year, and this is the first NPOV notice I have ever placed.

After taking a look through this article, I have a big problem with much of the content. I'd say about 80% of all the sentences on this page are negative towards Clinton, and every single passage concludes with how Clinton failed something or caused controversy about this.

Now, I have no problem with reporting these things, but I'm really getting sick of the "Critics have claimed..." and "Detractors have said..." What critics? What detractors? Cite everything! I don't want to censor any of the info here, but it needs to be balanced out with the rest of the article. No matter how much certain editors on this page absolutely despite this man, this doesn't mean that Clinton didn't do one thing right in his entire 8 years of service. And if you think he did, then at least cite rather than getting lazy by simply saying "critics say." Also, there needs to be a discussion as to what we should be focusing upon in this article, as there are many articles covering incidental events that are merely put in here for purposes of making Clinton look bad. But for now, this article isn't that long, so I think that for now, the answer is to simply insert more (sourced) info that balances out with things that Clinton actually did right. I'd just be happy if those who hate Clinton on this page could replace "Some critics say" with actual links to actual notable critics. -- kizzle 08:43, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for displaying your true colors for all to see! Not a Clinton-lover? LOL! If there are indeed sections that say "critics say," but you doubt there are critics, then let's investigate. Let's also do the same for any positive reports of his life. -- Agiantman 12:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Would you like to calmly address the points as stated above instead of getting all worked up? For now, their are barely any positive reports of his life, so there's little work to be done there. But I will try and source most all of my positive additions. All I'm saying is that it would be nice to quote specific critics rather than attribute to hearsay. Do you really disagree with that? -- kizzle 15:38, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't disagree. I think your idea is fair one. Let me know where you think there is a problem.-- Agiantman 19:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Causes of the Economic Boom

Passage: The reasons for this growth are hotly debated, but some cite his 1993 tax increase, the Republican Congress' 1995 spending cuts, Alan Greenspan's monetary leadership, the balanced budget, the Contract with America initiatives, or even Ronald Reagan's heavy deficit spending during the 1980's.

Can we quote each of these reasons, or cite any prominent economists, as this passage seems to be based upon editor speculation at this point, especially attributing this boom to Ronald Reagan's heavy deficit spending. At first glance, it seems ridiculous to attribute the economic boom of Clinton to a president 4 years out of office before Clinton ever stepped foot inside the White House. Regardless, irrelevant of my opinion, such a claim requires citation.-- kizzle 20:46, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Foreign Policy section

As it stands, there is a foreign policy section and a criticism of foreign policy section. However, the foreign policy section is itself a criticism, as every accomplishment is criticized. Thus, we have a positive section that criticizes Clinton, in addition to a criticism section that criticizes Clinton. Also, the criticism section is about twice as large as the foreign policy section. Is this fair, or neutral? I'm not saying censor any of the criticisms, but clearly the selection of material that has gone into this section is quite biased.-- kizzle 20:46, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Impeachment of Clinton

This section needs to be significantly reduced, as it stands now, the text in this article is larger than that of the daughter article. There's a reason why we split off information into daughter articles. Subsequently, a paragraph should summarize the impeachment proceedings, along with the daughter link above the paragraph.-- kizzle 20:46, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Timeline

Couple issues with the selection of events. For instance, all terrorist attacks are mentioned, whereas no thwarted terrorist attacks are mentioned (i.e. Millenium plot). I'll gather my thoughts on this one. -- kizzle 20:46, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Public Image

This section is just so grossly negative biased its ridiculous.

• As the first Baby Boomer president, Clinton was seen during his presidency and during his candidacy as a change from the presidents of the World War II Generation.
  • Neutral
• With his sound-bite-ready dialogue and pioneering use of pop culture in his campaigning, Clinton was declared, often negatively, as the " MTV president".
  • Negative
• Despite criticisms that his appeal to young voters lacked substance,
  • Negative
• Clinton won among Generation X voters in the 1992 election, with the highest Gen-X turnout ever.
  • Positive
• Clinton clearly came across as popular to young people.
  • Positive
• Until his inauguration as president, he had earned substantially less money than his wife, and had the smallest net worth of any president in modern history, according to My Life, Clinton's autobiography.
  • Negative

• Clinton was very popular overall among African-Americans and made improving race relations a major theme of his presidency. [49].
  • I have no idea
• Toni Morrison dubbed 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."
  • I have no idea

• Hillary Clinton's very strong role in the administration led to a degree of criticism toward a First Lady not seen since the days of Eleanor Roosevelt.
  • Negative
• Many people saw the couple as an unprecedented political partnership.
  • Negative
• Some even suspected that Hillary, and not Bill, was the dominant force behind the team.
  • Negative

• Social conservatives were put off by the impression of Clinton having been a " hippie" during the late 1960s, his coming-of-age era.
  • Negative
• In the 1960s, however, Clinton might not have been viewed as such by many of those in the hippie subculture.
  • Not sure what the point of this statement is
• Clinton avoided the draft with a student deferment while studying abroad during the Vietnam War.
  • Negative
• Clinton's marijuana experimentation — clumsily excused by Clinton's statement that he "didn't inhale" — further damaged his image with some voters.
  • Negative (bonus points for clumsily)
• Although he was actually to the right of previous Democratic candidates for the presidency on many issues — he supported the death penalty, curfews, uniforms in public schools, and other measures opposed by youth rights supporters, and he expanded the War on Drugs greatly while in office —
  • Negative
• Clinton's actions during the 1960s were never forgotten by his opponents.
  • Negative
• Intense opposition to the Clintons was perhaps the main factor in the phenomenal growth of conservative talk radio in the 1990s.
  • Negative

• Starting from 1992 Presidential election campaign, rumors about Clinton's adultery were floating about, and these surfaced and increased with Paula Jones' accusations of sexual harassment.
  • Negative
• After allegations had linked him to Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, and Kathleen Willey, Clinton's sex life would become the focus of his public image when in January 1998 recorded conversations by Linda Tripp contained statements by White House intern Monica Lewinsky about having oral sex.
  • Negative

• Clinton was viewed with intense personal dislike of his policies and character by some on the far right.
  • Negative
• Several lurid accusations were leveled by conservative talk radio.
  • Negative
• Among these were rumors of involvement with drug traffickers, personal cocaine use, and involvement in the death of long-time friend and aide Vince Foster (ruled a suicide).
  • Negative
• The deadly Branch Davidian standoff near Waco, Texas in 1993 fomented further far right hostility to the Clinton administration.
  • Negative

• Clinton is often referred to by nickname among both detractors and fans.
• One of the earliest was "Bubba", which alludes to his Southern "good ol' boy" background.
• Other common nicknames include "Slick Willy" and "Clintoon" (by detractors), and the "Big Dog" (by fans).

Are you kidding me? This piece reads like a hit-job. -- kizzle 20:46, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I am unclear as to how some of these things are obviously "negative" or "positive" and not just "facts".

"Despite criticisms that his appeal to young voters lacked substance" (this is clearly negative criticism) "Clinton won among Generation X voters in the 1992 election, with the highest Gen-X turnout ever" (this is either verifiably true or not true) "Until his inauguration as president, he had earned substantially less money than his wife, and had the smallest net worth of any president in modern history, according to My Life, Clinton's autobiography." (either verifiably true or not true, and plenty of people would consider this a POSITIVE aspect of Clinton's life) "Clinton avoided the draft with a student deferment while studying abroad during the Vietnam War." (negative? This is either true or not, and whether it's "negative" or not is a matter of how the reader fits this fact into his worldview) "lthough he was actually to the right of previous Democratic candidates for the presidency on many issues — he supported the death penalty, curfews, uniforms in public schools, and other measures opposed by youth rights supporters, and he expanded the War on Drugs greatly while in office —" (why is this all negative? He either supported these things or didn't, it's neither negative or positive, it's either true or not true, and the reader can determine how this colors his opinion of President Clinton) "Clinton's actions during the 1960s were never forgotten by his opponents." (harder to verify, but how is this negative? It could just as easily demonstrate that his opponents are petty grudge-holders) "Starting from 1992 Presidential election campaign, rumors about Clinton's adultery were floating about, and these surfaced and increased with Paula Jones' accusations of sexual harassment." (This actually happened and President Clinton verified it, should it be excluded because it's not flattering?) "Clinton was viewed with intense personal dislike of his policies and character by some on the far right." (this is only "negative" if you respect the opinions of the far right. Many people would consider this one of Clinton's accolades) "Several lurid accusations were leveled by conservative talk radio." (again, this either happened or didn't happen, and whether it's negative or positive is a matter of the viewer's opinion, not the veracity of the statement)

It's a peculiar phenomenon that one man's objective truth is another man's biased opinion. Much of what you cited can be easily verified as being either true or not true, or purely speculation or opinion. The stuff that can be shown to be true or not true ought to be included in an encyclopedic entry. And if you can find more stuff that rings as "positive" in your ears to add to it, by all means, do so. But much of what you cited as "negative" indictments of Clinton didn't sound negative to me at all. Most of the criticism was centered around charactarizations of the "hostile far right," and unless the reader respects those people's opinions, I don't think mentioning their sentiments is necessarily a "negative" for President Clinton. Now, if you wish to include praise that has been offered up to President Clinton, I'd suggest only that the source be quoted as well, even if in somewhat slanted and ambiguous terms like, "the far right." - I don't have a user name, sorry.

I agree with you, and I wasn't inferring that any of this is untrue. Mainly, we have a vast amount of objective truths we can draw from like an artist draws from a palette of colors, but what actually goes into the painting is a delicate balance of these colors. We have a vast amount of things, both positive and negative that we can say about Bill Clinton's image, as he was both loved and hated, leaving under a scandal but with the highest approval rating of any exiting president. It is current selection of mostly negative facts of a president who left with this highest approval rating that I am opposed to. Given no size constraints, I agree that information should be added rather than removed to achieve this balance, however if this page gets too large, then we should think about selecting and balancing what truths should be included. -- kizzle 22:15, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• As a certain editor ( kizzle) earlier stated on this talk page, "I have asked about a million times for people to supply balancing quotes, to balance out the quotes is made. It's really not crazy to assume we treat an article on a U.S. president and on some right-wing nutjob commentator differently." In addressing the supposed POV-ness of having pro and and critical statements, and the argument that there are not enough "pro" statements and too many "anti" statements, the solution, to paraphrase that earlier editor, "I have asked about a million times for people to supply balancing statements, to balance out the statements made." -- Noitall 22:12, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Of course. I also said, more recently:

But for now, this article isn't that long, so I think that for now, the answer is to simply insert more (sourced) info that balances out with things that Clinton actually did right. I'd just be happy if those who hate Clinton on this page could replace "Some critics say" with actual links to actual notable critics.

I didn't say I was going to remove the info. Keep up with the discussion. -- kizzle 22:45, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Please excuse me as a direct my attention to the Josef Stalin page, where I will insist the number of positive statements match the number of negative ones I found there. -- Agiantman 22:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

So Bill Clinton is on the same level as Josef Stalin??? LMAO! That is the funniest thing I've heard all day! -- kizzle 22:52, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

No, the implication is not that Clinton is like Stalin, but that the requirement that positive and negative opinions by third party observers of the individual in question be weighed equally is flawed. -I don't have a user name.

True, Stalin had a bigger cigar. LMAO! even more! (hey, remember, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar) Anyhow, no one is stopping you from adding in info (we'll have to see though about Al Franken stating he was more honest than Abraham Lincoln). -- Noitall 23:24, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I actually visited the Stalin site and the pro- Stalin POVers (I am not kidding) have taken over the page. Stalin's genocidal purging is only a small part of the article. Go figure! -- Agiantman 00:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Someone who equates Clinton with Stalin needs to think twice about accusing other people of POV. -- kizzle 00:35, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anybody was trying to "equate" Clinton with Stalin. The parallel was not the ideology or behavior of the men, but rather the editorial approach to handling quotes, criticism, and POV in their respective articles as being primarily biographies of political leaders. -I have no user name

Kizzle, I have to say that you are right on this one. I know that those things are just criticism, and some of the words like "licid" negate the criticism anyway. But I agree that it is just a list of negatives with a few positives sprinkled in for that extra hint of flavor. I was amazed when I read it, it went like this"

"critics say..."

"but critics say..."

"critics say..."

"conservatives say..."

"and other critics say..."

"critics say..."

"critics say..."

"critics say..."

Surely there is more to his public image than a guy who kiddies like and who many conservatives hate. In fact, I am putting up a POV tag because this is so severe.

James Carville is only mentioned once, and that's as a 'spin doctor' after the election had passed. Deep in the article and only in passing. Carville was instrumental in Clinton's presidential campaign, and this isn't mentioned at all. James Carville should be noted earlier in the article, particularly under the Presidency somewhere near the fifth paragraph. Ideally, "using the line 'It's the economy, stupid'." could be rewritten, "using James Carville's line, 'It's the economy, stupid'." I mean, it was his line, right? I would just go ahead and make this change, but since the neutrality of this article is already being disputed, it's got enough trouble already. I thought maybe it'd be better to suggest this here, and let others decide whether or not I'm right. ZachsMind 23:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for it, if you can find an article that describes Carville's role in Clinton getting elected that we can cite. -- kizzle 00:03, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

The real issue, in my opinion, is really that there's next-to-no coverage of the '92 campaign organization and strategy at all -- that section needs a rewrite, which should prominently mention not only Carville, but also Paul Begala, George Stephanopoulos, and Stan Greenberg. RadicalSubversiv E 00:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I've come this close to being drawn into a revert with some pathetic sockpuppet by the name of agiantman, if someone could actually intervine here, that would be nice-- 172.150.56.37 02:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• You know, for someone who admits to editing from an untraceable IP address, you have a lot of gall to accuse others of sockpuppetry. I'll admit that Agiantman's edits aren't doing the article (or Clinton) a favor, but if you'd have cooled it on the revert warring, it'd be easier for a third party like myself to see what went wrong. I'll take a look, but I don't have a lot of time tonight. android 79 02:20, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • and now he's become a Noitall, ha ha! are there going to be anymore sockpuppets out tonight? maybe someone calling themselves ThreeBlindMice or VandalizeTheClintons or whatever else -- 172.150.56.37 02:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Err, Noitall has a pretty extensive edit history. If you continue to throw around the term "sockpuppet" it will begin to lose its meaning. android 79 02:32, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • yes, and user:agiantman looks like he was made up, besides his edits of hillary clinton were certianly vandalism, and I don't mean POV vnadalism, I mean plain old fassioned gibberish vandalism, see for yourself [ [50]] and [[[ edit history]|Noitall]]-- 172.150.56.37 02:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Um, those links don't work. android 79 02:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
          • now they do, and as you can see from my poorly formatted wikilinks, agiantman seems to exist for the exclusive purpose of vandalizing the bill article -- 172.150.56.37 02:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You will be reported if you make any more vandalism on this or any other page (my talk page) or make any other personal attacks. -- Noitall 02:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• This comment is to android (I will not address the 172 Anon as he is a sockpuppet, vandal and makes personal attacks, he was warned 4 times and when I get the chance will be up for an RfC). agiantman made about 3 major edits. 2 were bogus and should be rv, but the CNN reference was a good source, the info was relevant and appropriate for the article. -- Noitall 03:03, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

you won't address me? that's amusing, but meaningless in the long run, since I don't have the time to go through and revert all your vandalism personally-- 172.172.170.232 03:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

perfect, now there's another one of you, noitall-- 172.172.170.232 03:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet? That's nonsense. I am proud to use my one and only user id. And remarks that it is vandalism to suggest that many view Bill Clinton as a "liberal" only reflects the outrageous pro-Clinton bias of this page.-- Agiantman 09:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW - I have never edited the Hillary Clinton page. More lies and vandalism from mr. anonymous IP address id.-- Agiantman 09:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to see you and noitall in the same room at the same time, but that woul be a bit like clark kent and superman coexisting, ain't gonna happen-- 172.153.84.133 22:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

---Don't feed the troll--- Voice of All(MTG) 07:38, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

---Yes, yes, FEED THE TROLL--- What's wrong with liberalism that makes you Americans so scared anyway? The pinko commie fascist bastards are no more, replaced by the new enemy of evil-doers who can hardly be called liberal. Lighten up, embrace liberalism, socialism and more ... strive for a more humane and understanding society. Yours, in an orange boiler suit, from Camp X-Ray -- 84.68.254.66 10:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's a review by Publisher's Weekly of the book reference you just inserted.

However, Democratic icons provoke gratuitous partisan sniping from some of the well-known conservative contributors, especially on the contentious issue of character, tilting the editors’ much-vaunted objectivity rightward as a result. Peggy Noonan lingers on JFK's peccadilloes, including his use of sunless tanning products, rather than on his skillful management of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Robert Bork highlights FDR’s domestic and international miscues, leaving readers to wonder how the only four-term president ever made the top three. Although George W. Bush is not ranked, he garners a glowing profile that’s twice as long as FDR’s. [51]

I fear what setting the bar of appropriate criticism so low will do to these political pages, especially to George W. Bush -- kizzle 06:31, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I apologize that I have to bring this subject here, but I believe in consistency and others a promoting something quite juvenile that it must be brought up here. About 4 editors, 2 might be sock puppets, on Spiro Agnew insist on adding an anagram stating "grow a penis." Responsible editors have reverted them but they insisted that it is appropriate for the article for various reasons and started a poll. I don't think anagrams are appropriate for an article, for instance, it is noted that "President Clinton of the USA = To copulate he finds interns." If we go down that way, we will start including anagrams on all the pages (which seems quite juvenile). If you agree that this is inappropriate, please go to that page and vote. -- Noitall 14:14, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

...so it's not a high rpiority or anything, but do you think people could pay a little attention to all the vandalism going on in this article-- 172.162.107.172 02:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• I know I'm one of many users with this article on our watchlists, and we do our best to revert vandalism. While it may not take one minute like on Bush's article, the vandalism will never last too long. You can also revert vandalism, by either reading how to here, or by simply deleting the crap and re-inserting the proper text. Hope that helps. Harro5 07:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I find it funny that the Bill Clinton's article doesn't have a neutrality message on it while the George Bush article does. everyone not care if a democrat is neutral, but want republicans to be as neutral as possible? Or maybe Bill is just fading with history and no one thinks about him anymore... you answer that for yourself...

• Clinton's article has nowhere near as many POV disputes as Bush's and isn't seen as too controversial in its current state. Harro5 06:43, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

The article on American Liberalism lists Bill Clinton (and his wife Hillary Rodham Clinton) as notable liberal leaders. I need some advice on whether you think he should actually be in that list. -- Revolución ( talk) 16:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I would say they should be on the list. They may not be as liberal as some, but nonetheless, they are liberal. There was a discussion above about his liberalism, but I'm not sure if it was ever fully answered. I think the discussion can be reopened in a polite and civil manner. I will start. I contend that Clinton is a liberal. While being a moderate in his party, overall he was liberal. Your turn. -- Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind... will discuss elsewhere. -- Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

In the article it says that Clinton has made it known he wants to be the UN sec gen. But on the UN Sec Gen page - it says that Clinton denies this. Can someone familiar with the situation, or who knows a source fix the inconsistency. novacatz 05:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

From http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-02.html 1993 December 8 NAFTA Ratified President Clinton worked to pass bipartisan legislation implementing the North American Free Trade Agreement, creating the world’s largest free trade zone. Since passage of NAFTA, the U.S. manufacturing sector has created 400,000 jobs, and exports to Canada and Mexico support 600,000 more jobs today than in 1993. (Signed 12/8/93)

1994 December 8 GATT Ratified The Clinton-Gore Administration worked with a bipartisan majority in the Senate to pass legislation implementing the General Agreement on Tariffs and trade (GATT). This agreement allows American workers and businesses to compete in a freer, fairer, and more effective global trading system. (PL 103-465, signed 12/8/94)

Can someone fit this in?

Well, according to some unions [ [52]]:More than 402,981 U.S. workers have been certified as of May 7, 2002 under one special NAFTA unemployment program, NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA TAA).

Also they claim: In a historic reversal, the U.S. has developed a trade deficit with Mexico since NAFTA. The $1.7 billion U.S. trade surplus with Mexico in 1993 has been transformed into an annual trade deficit of $25.0 billion in 2000. The U.S. trade deficit with Canada has increased from $10.8 to $44.9 billion over the same period. 172.135.239.51 01:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Does someone want to be bold and rewrite the intro? It is far too long to be an intro. It should be much shorter. Tell who the man is and why he's notable, and move the rest into the body of the article. I would try, but don't quite have the time in the near future. Just a thought. -- Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Already on it sir! :) Voice of All(MTG) 17:27, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

" In the wake of post-9/11 investigations into intelligence failures, critics have criticized the Clinton Administration for ignoring evidence and refusing to take action on intelligence that pointed to the locations of both Osama bin Laden and Mohammed Atta years before the attacks. See also Able Danger and U.S., Taliban Bargained over bin Laden." History shows there is ample evidence that Clinton did all that he could given the political environment. He just ran out of time when his presidency ended.

QuestioningAuthority 16:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

${\displaystyle Insertformulahere}$