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.

Since this article is now bigger than the preferred size, I think that it should be broken up into smaller chunks with the Bill Clinton page itself becoming a directory to these pages. New pages could be donoted as follows family and early career, govenorship, presidency, and post-presidency. I think his presidency may have to be broken up into at least two pages, one for each term at least. This is my two cents on the matter. Gmosaki 22:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree. I agree on the fact that there should be a page for his presidency. SNIyer12 18:49, 23 January 2005 (UTC)

I agree that some of the more lengthy material should be spun off into sub-articles. I strongly disagree that the Bill Clinton page should become merely a directory to these pages. The main page should be an encyclopedia article, summarizing the important material, with links to expanded discusssions of various topics in the sub-articles. The point is that one shouldn't have to wade through all that stuff to get a basic understanding of the topic ... otherwise, why have sub-articles at all? Derex 16:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Derex has corrected all of our problems! When facts are introduced, hey, the truth must go. While leaving all the other numbers and conjectures (conjectures until proven), the cited, independent fact must go. But hey, ZERO INFLUENCE is ZERO INFLUENCE. Everyone in agreement I am sure will all at once bombarding this site with removals of the economy section! After, it wasn't Clinton's credit . . . or fault.

For the context of the current tirade, please see the section just below. And personally, I don't think Clinton had much impact on the economy one way or the other; but that's just my opinion. The point is that by law Clinton has no control over the Fed, so it's clearly inappropriate to suggest otherwise. That's my last word on the matter, I'll not respond to further trolling. Derex @ 18:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It's folly to think that a President has zero influence over the economy. The President DOES have influence over interest rates, albeit indirectly. The Fed, generally, has a mandate to fight inflation/stimulate the economy via interest rates. When the budget and trade deficit is high, the Fed will have pressure to increase interest rates to beat down inflation. When the reverse is true, there is more scope to expand the economy via lower interest rates.

In addition, the president also has influnce over the economy, via the budget, by encouraging investments in training and education, or, alternatively, by rewarding productive behaviour. Was welfare reform not a Clinton initiative? Was the Earned Income Tax Credit, effectively a tax cut for the working class, not a Clinton initiative?

yes, as you point out, the fed controls interest rates. exactly my point, the president doesn't except through nomination of members. but then you might as well say the president makes supreme court decisions also.

i absolutely agree that over the long-run the tax code, education, infra-structure etc do affect the growth rate of the economy. i find it highly unlikely that any of these things have much impact within the span of just a few years. even the old keynsian argument of stimulus via budget is usually far too sluggish a mechanism to control business cycles ... it's great for a catastrophic depression but essentially useless for modern business cycles. there are sound theoretical and empirical grounds for this viewpoint. i can point you to the relevant literature if you are interested.

in short, yes the president impacts the economy. for example, the bush policies have been incredibly damaging to our long-term prospects. but are they the reason the economy is in the doldrums at the moment? highly doubtful. the impacts will unfold over a long time as reduced gdp growth, reduced infrastucture maintenance and improvement, reduced social spending, less improvement on poverty, worse environmental performance, ... overall a drag on standard of living. is bush personally responsible for elevated unemployment, or for the recent uptick in inflation? no, those are short-term phenomena over which the president has little control. they are also far less important than the long-term impacts i mentioned.

however, this is all tangential to the point under dispute ... the president simply does not set interest rates any more than he can overturn roe v. wade. Derex 16:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting: there were fictitious "lowest interest rates" quoted here that was relevant . . . but not pointed out as a lie, so not relevant . . . oh, I see, let's just mention the good parts about the economy. Derex says the president doesn't control when something bad happens . . . maybe he didn't control any of the good things either and they should all be removed. Of course, none of that information is cited currently. When talking about the economy, lets be FAIR and BALANCED. Did Clinton control the unemployment rate? Homeowner rate? By Derelicx's logic, no. Everyone, realize a slant when you see one.

Excuse me? What slant? You put in a graph of the 50-year fed funds rate. That's pure silliness. By law, the president has no control over the Fed funds rate. Certainly it does not deserve one of the few images here. Further, it didn't even back up the claim that you made in the text ... that interest rates increased dramatically during clinton's tenure. They didn't. They went down a bit, then up a bit, never varying by more than a point either way. Derex @ 03:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Your excused, but only this once. A mistake once, shame on that pesky graph. A second time, shame on you.(Many seventh graders have difficulty reading that darn x- and y-axes; interest rate is 3.00& in September 1992, but was 91% higher by Feb. 2000 and 117% higher by May 2000 [1].) NOTE: Don't believe me, read the facts. By law the president has no control over the unemployment rate, stock ownership, or all the other myriad of claims made on Wiki. That's pure silliness. YET you left it in . . . uncited, might I add. First, some poor would-be-Wiki editor said interest rates lowered . . . that Clinton controlled interest rates like he did home ownership and the number of people that work on Long Island . . . not only wrong, but a flat out lie. So, I correct it since there is this broad assumption of the economic control of Bill Clinton. Hey, that is the whole hype about the economic boom. But then this one pertinent negative isn't. Fantastic! ALL HAIL: DEREX IS REMOVING THIS INCREDULOUS ECONOMIC INFORMATION BECAUSE HE FINALLY REALIZES WHAT MANY HAVE MISSED (AND NOT BEING FACETIOUS, but I really do agree) THAT THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T CONTROL THE ECONOMY; FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO MISSED THAT SECTION IN 6TH GRADE, THAT WOULD BE THE PRESIDENT OF A TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT, NOT A DEMOCRATIC ONE. Kudos to Derex! Kudos to Derex! He has my vote for Editor-in-Chief. See, we do agree on something!

Anon, respectfully, you are being obnoxious shouting like that; it just makes you seem intemperate. By law the president has no influence over the Fed, which controls interest rates, beyond nomination of the board of governors. That is different from every other aspect of the economy, de jure. Whether the president de facto influences other aspects of the economy is an open debate. It is often argued that fiscal policy, government spending and tax policies, plays an important role in the economy. The president does, by law, have quite a bit of control over fiscal policy. Further, social welfare programs, which the president also largely controls, play an important role as well.

Further, the fed rate is not the economically relevant one, that's just the overnight inter-bank lending rate. The relevant rate is really the commercial & housing rates. A one-point move in the fed rate may be a high percentage there, but it is a much less significant percentage change in the relevant economic rates. Interest rates were, by historical standards, quite stable over Clinton's presidency. Not that he had control over that, again by law. Your 50-year graph of the fed funds rate is clearly out of place.

As to your 6th grade crack, I actually did graduate high-school, as my user page shows. Derex @ 15:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

"Clearly out of place." Sounds great, yet no one contested the fact before and only questioned it once it disputed the original suggestion of lower interest rates (and what is relevant and what is not is another matter). That is the problem. Whether you say de jure or de facto is irrelevant: the facts weren't right and they weren't questioned until proven negative -- then they're not relevant. That is troubling. Everyone in their right mind knows the President does not control the interest rates -- but if out of line, then also ask the same questions about the other economic indicators. Now, instead of removing a pertinent negative that was once proudly exclaimed as meaningful to the Clinton presidency, reviewers need to start checking the other claims (that's right: all the other numbers on the economic site that do not have a citation are questionable because who came up with the figure and how did they do it). The, whether the role of the president in different matters can be properly assessed and balanced. Hey, qualified facts first and then some analysis. Right now, there is neither because there are not qualified facts. Even the one quote that talks about the deficit is from Clinton's press release. Hardly reliable unless cross-referenced. Still, I am happy that the interest rate myth is dispelled. That was the original goal . . . though only taken down when factually referenced as negative . . . that is disturbing: ok as positive/myth, irrelevant as negative/fact. Where is the logic in that?

What? Derex @ 02:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Please excuse any talk page guidelines I have unwittingly broken, I'm pretty new to this.

I am curious why the article states that Clinton's "approval rating varied over the course of his first term, ranging from about 40% in 1993"? A coworker of mine asked me what Clinton's lowest approval rating was, I answered 40% based on this page. The coworker pointed me to this page from Roper:

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/cgi-bin/hsrun.exe/Roperweb/PresJob/PresJob.htx;start=HS_fullresults?pr=Clinton

Which seems to show that for two months some polls were consistently showing an approval rating as low as 36%.

I would prefer to believe the polls were biased or poorly done but...?

jerry 16:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Please include the youngest and second youngest.

Why?

Would it be appropriate to add the following:

In September 2005, the Guangzhou Rubber Group, a rubber products manufacture, announced they would be manufacturing a line of condoms named Clinton (and another named Lewinsky). The company spokesman stated the reasoning behind the naming was that Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky "...are symbols of people who are responsible and dedicated to their jobs." (source: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050921/ap_on_fe_st/clinton_condoms)

--- N0YKG 18:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• No. That's why I took it out when it was added. If you want to add it to Condom, feel free. If Mr. Clinton -- or even more fun, Mrs. Clinton -- endorses it, feel free. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

While I haven't scrutinized the entire page, I like a lot of what I see. I especially like the way you handled all the unsubstantiated rumors floating around Bill Clinton. Exemplary work. Big Daddy 13:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Update! Although I still greatly admire the way you characterized the unsubstantiated rumors about Bill Clinton and collapsed them into one tight paragraph, I've been instructed that the use of the terms "far right" and 'fomented' are considered unacceptable for use in Wikipedia and should be removed. Any comments on this before I go ahead and make the modifications? Thanks! Big Daddy 09:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

POV Clean Up

I changed this - "Clinton was viewed with intense personal dislike of his policies and character by some on the far right. Several unsubstantiated accusations were leveled by conservative talk radio. Among these were rumors of involvement with drug traffickers and personal cocaine use. Some talk show personalities even fomented conspiracy theories about Clinton's involvement in the death of long-time friend and aide Vince Foster, which was later ruled a suicide in an extensive investigation by Kenneth Starr. The deadly Branch Davidian standoff near Waco, Texas in 1993 fomented further far right hostility to the Clinton administration."

To This - "Clinton was viewed with intense personal dislike of his policies and character by some conservative critics. Several unsubstantiated accusations were leveled on some conservative talk radio programs. Among these were rumors of involvement with drug traffickers and personal cocaine use. Some talk show personalities even developed conspiracy theories about Clinton's involvement in the death of long-time friend and aide Vince Foster, which was later ruled a suicide in an extensive investigation by Kenneth Starr. The deadly Branch Davidian standoff near Waco, Texas in 1993, which many considered to a be bungled operation, engendered further hostility to the Clinton administration."

Hope no one minds... Big Daddy 11:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. In terms of syntax, I think the first sentence should be. "Clinton's character and policies were viewed with intense, personal dislike by some conservative critics." The change to the Waco thing makes sense. It wasn't "far right hostility" after the fact—across the spectrum people thought it was a screw-up. Marskell 12:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree although the re-introduction without comment of the word fomenting may be problematic. Either way, with the removal of the emotion-laden tags "far right" I think this is an excellent model of how to deal with the litany of unsubatantiated attacks that are thrown at almost any controversial political figure. I'm glad you agree with me that this is a good treatment for the Clinton article, as I plan on using this model in treating similar rumors and inneundos in other articles. Thanks again for your comments. Big Daddy 02:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. No. "Fomented" should stand. It was removed with a specious, untrue, and silly "justification," and it's back for just that reason. By the way, you've been Referred for Arbitration, based on nearly a month of vandalism and POV edits. Here's the RfA page [2]. You were also Referred for Comment, but you refused to comment on that page after weeks of requests by several Wiki editors. I suggest you check both pages out. Now, is this the fiftiegh time you've sworn to use your "Clinton model" to treat "innuendos in other articles?" Please know that should you make any POV edit, it will be reverted, in compliance with Wiki policies. Eleemosynary 04:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

When he tried to pass the Arkansas Bar, he probably took a test to show us he knew what he was doing. What happened to the test results? Were the results judged objectively? If his bar exam was destroyed to hide the results, or an improper standard was used to evaluate his answers, who was on the Board of Bar Examiners when he was tested?

Did he get his law license back? QuestioningAuthority 18:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Didn't he lately try his hand out teaching law students? And this was the guy that managed to mistranslate e pluribus unum, too; although that says a lot about his ability to translate the Medieval Latin opinions to be found in certain old, dusty pages of the English Reports, it says even more about his inability to admit he's wrong, something a lot of law professors suffer from. It appears that, when nobody inquires into a professor's competence, it's the students that are all the worse for the wear.

His domestic agenda also included more conservative themes such as reforming welfare programs, expanding the "War on Drugs", and increasing law enforcement funding

Is the phrasing "more conservative themes" NPOV? -- Dpr 03:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is there such a long list of books for further reading, but not a single source cited? Johnleemk | Talk 16:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. How about a reference for the trivia that he is allergic to beef and dairy. Seems I recall he has a taste for cheeseburgers, which would not seem to jive with having allergies to the main ingredients. older≠ wiser 01:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

On 10/13/05, I removed the sentence in the section "Significant Events" that stated the economic recession began in early 1999. On the contrary, the economy continued to boom well into early 2000 where on January 14, 2000, the Dow hit it's all time record high of 11,722.98.

See the Phi Beta Kappa Wikipedia site. Clinton was elected to Phi Beta Kappa in 1968 and is one of only 4 Presidents to have an earned Phi Beta Kappa key. —preceding unsigned comment by 205.188.116.6 ( talk •  contribs) 23:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

This information checks out, as per the Phi Beta Kappa website at pbk.org and several other reputable sites. In the future, please WP:CITE your source(s) so others can check your work. Using a Wikipedia article as a source citation within another Wikipedia article is not a good idea. In practice, please provide external links as Wikipedia articles can change at a moments notice. Best regards, Hall Monitor 23:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

CBDunkerson recently reverted an edit of mine where I noted that according to Roper, Clinton's approval rating had dropped to as low as 36%. CBDunkerson's edit comment was: "If we are including outliers we should do so in both directions. Also fixed link."

I have several questions:

A) What is an outlier? When I visit the Roper Poll I had linked to, [3], I (reluctantly) note that they have 21 data points for approval between 5/26/93 and 8/3/93, a period of a bit more than two months, or 1/6 of 1993, or 2% of his entire term. Within this period, Roper lists 10 data points showing Clinton's approval below 40%. Those 10 data points seemingly represent repeated polling by 4 polling agencies. So for the period in question almost 50% of the data points are less than 40%. In what sense then is a mentioning that Bill Clinton had a low of 36% approval rating relying on an outlier?

B) Which outlier on the high end are you referring to? I say that if it makes sense, list it. But that's just me.

C) How are these sorts of polls handled on other wikipedia topic pages?

If you can help me get my bet back my demonstrating that the 5/26-27/93 Yank/TIME/CNN 36% rating is to be discarded I would appreciate that. But it seems like a reasonable data point and not an outlier to me.

jerry 03:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Umm... I didn't revert your edit. It's still there. As to why it's an 'outlier'... it appeared once in a single poll with a small sample size. -- CBDunkerson 08:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well please accept my sincere apologies then, I'm new at this wiki wiki intarweb stuff. I swear that when I looked at the page a day or so ago, I didn't see the 36%. (And I must say once more I would have preferred winning the bet and not losing it.) -- jerry 02:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Wait a week or two. Right now Bush is at 36%... tied with Clinton's low during the Hilary healthcare debacle. And that's BEFORE the indictments coming down. After the indictments Bush'll drop below 36%. -- CBDunkerson 12:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Indictments>? Try living outside of fantasy land for a while-- Here I come to save the day 13:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The US 'conservative' capacity for projection never ceases to amaze me. GWB says that he can cut taxes, greatly increase spending, and still maintain the budget surplus, and 'conservatives' start chanting "No more fuzzy math"... at >Al Gore<. Now, the ability to read the writing on the wall (in the big fiery letters) is depicted as 'living in fantasy land'. We shall see. One of us is indeed living in a 'fantasy land'... and before the week is out we will know which. -- CBDunkerson 10:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I've "merged" the Socks the cat page into this page. A more experienced Wiki user is needed to help delete the Socks page. -- mwazzap 02:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I have no idea why User:Randy Johnston reverted your merge. -- Viriditas | Talk 03:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know anything about the source and/or background of the quote "We can't be so fixated on the rights of ordinary Americans", attributed to Clinton by many extremist critics? -- Dpr 05:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

It was from a March 11, 1993 USA Today article. The title of the article was "NRA change: `Omnipotent to powerful'" and Clinton was referring to firearm posession rights during that particular quote. Here is the relevant section from that USA Today article:

Reportedly considering a guns tax to help pay for a new health care plan, Clinton is no Second Amendment absolutist. "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles . . . that we are unable to think about reality," he said last week.

The full archived article can be seen at NewsMine.org [4]

While it was misquoted and out of context in this wikipedia article, I do think that it is an important quote to include in its entirety. It shows that, as far as public policy is concerned, Clinton tended to be more mindful of the practical effect of federal laws rather than being a strict constructionist.

--Schenck, 17 December 2005

Multiple reverts on this issue. I think NPOV reference to Nixon/Watergate appropriate in impeachment section as this has been such a rare event historically. Reference to Andrew Johnson impeachment appropriate for same reason.— Gaff ^ταλκ 07:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, there is no link to Nixon in the alternative version of the article; you can't expect a reader to click a link to read about Nixon. As for the reciprocal link in the Nixon article - it makes sense, since Nixon was not actually impeached that the article does not have additional information about presidents who were impeached. Guettarda 07:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I never expected a reader to click on a hyperlink, non-existant or otherwise. Rather, I proposed that he take the radical step of typing the name Richard Nixon into the search box at the left and consult the article directly.

But more to the point, the logic you employ to justify the reference to Nixon in the Clinton article, but not vice versa, is facile and self-serving. I take it that you both realize, Gaff & Guettarda, that by insisting on this, you are practically begging an artful writer to slip such a reference into the Nixon topic? How's this, off-the-top-of-my-head, picking up on one gross assumption found within the article:

"In light of his loss of political support and the near certainty of both his impeachment by the House of Representatives and his conviction by the Senate, he resigned on national television on August 9, 1974."

Will you both support the immediate addition of:

"Had he not taken this route, today he most likely would have been one of only three American presidents to have been impeached; the first being Andrew Johnson; the last, Bill Clinton."

I throw both of your arguments back, paraphrased to demonstrate my point:

"I think NPOV reference to the Clinton impeachment appropriate in the above example as this has been such a rare event historically. Reference to Andrew Johnson impeachment appropriate for same reason."

The above would serve to justify my proposed addition to the Nixon article.

"As for the reciprocal link in the Clinton article - it makes no sense (since Nixon was not actually impeached) that the article has additional information about presidents who weren't impeached."

The above would serve to justify the concurrent removal of the Nixon reference from the Clinton article.

In closing, let me state that I resent having to play this game – the rationales I so carefully worded in the two Edit Summaries should have sufficed. But as I have demonstrated, gentlemen, we can do this either way – I, along with others, will not tolerate a double standard.

Your call.

67.80.7.40 09:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

First off...take it easy with your resentments and claims of double standards. I'm not going to speak for Guettarda's views on this. My point is that impeachment is such a rarity in US politics that it warrants mentioning and placement into context. This sets the US system apart from other representative republics where whimisical votes of no confidence lead to more frequent turnover of leaders. A reference to Nixon is not inherently POV as you seem to imply. Nixon subverted law in ways that are far more complicated and far reaching. Yes, I agree that a comment on the Nixon page would be appropriate, just as you have proposed. In fact, I have added just such a comment. — Gaff ^ταλκ 10:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

(The second sentence of the comment quoted below was withdrawn by its owner, as I composed my response. As Gaff appears to have agreed to compromise, the below is posted for the benefit of others, including Guettarda, who may yet protest the decision to insert a reference to Clinton's impeachment in the Nixon article.)

"Yes, I agree that a comment on the Nixon page would be appropriate, just as you have proposed. However, unless the claim that Nixon would likely have been impeached has verifiable references, it would sound like conjecture or original research and be deleted."

As indicated in my original message, the Nixon page currently states that, and more:

"In light of his loss of political support and the near certainty of both his impeachment by the House of Representatives and his conviction by the Senate ... "

1. Do you propose examining and subsequently eliminating this conjecture now, or only after I use it as a segue to introduce Clinton's impeachment?

• This assumes lack of good faith on my part. I'm in agreement with you and even posted your proposed comment to the Nixon article. As far as examining and eliminating conjecture, that is not really something that I alone can accomplish, but will likely need to be agreed upon by consensus of editors on the Nixon article. Seems to me that its entirely reasonable as written and needs no further comment.— Gaff ^ταλκ 17:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Originally, the excerpt from the Nixon article – "In light of his loss of political support and the near certainty of both his impeachment by the House of Representatives and his conviction by the Senate ... " – struck you as conjecture, but you now describe it as "entirely reasonable". I am inclined to agree with your initial take – notwithstanding its value as a convenient segue to Clinton's impeachment. The wording is too strong, and there are scholars who would take serious issue with it as written. I suspect the issue will have to be revisited.

2. Why need the standard for inclusion of Clinton's actual impeachment in the Nixon article be the near-certitude of Nixon's own impeachment? Especially while you simultaneously assert that the fact that Nixon was merely threatened with impeachment warrants its inclusion in the Clinton article?

• The standard does not need be the near certitude. The standard is only that there is a relevant connection (impeachment or threat thereof) between Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton. At the time of the Clinton impeachment hearings, the media and people in general were discussing the history of impeachment and it seems reasonable that the Clinton article (under subheading Impeachment and other scandals) contain a reference to the history of impeachment (or Nixon's resignation under threat).

• • This issue should be addressed in more formal terms, using a strict standard: the opening of formal impeachment proceedings. This would currently allow for the inclusion of Presidents Johnson, Nixon and Clinton, but no others.

• This may relate to your afore mentioned "moral relativism" concern. That is partly why I wrote the line that you question below as question 3 (which I will address now): I do not think that mere mention of Nixon's resignation is POV or an attempt to bring "moral relativism" into the article. If you feel that the wording is too direct (and somehow insinuates that Clinton ought to have resigned), then by all means, change the phrasing.

• • At best, as currently worded, the Nixon reference is awkwardly introduced and parenthetical to the immediate topic. The original motivation for its inclusion remains suspect – one wonders if it was not mainly to remind the reader of the ostensibly worse scandal of Watergate. If the Nixon reference stays, it will have to be rewritten and in the context described above.

• My argument is very cut&dry, objective and NPOV: these three presidents share a significant historical relation to one another via the subject of impeachment that needs to be highlighted. The question is how best to do that and I beleive that mentioning it in the article is appropriate.— Gaff ^ταλκ 17:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Speaking of which. The current arrangement is unacceptable, as

a) The summary at the beginning of the Clinton article no longer references his impeachment, while mentioning relative trivialities such as "Clinton was the third-youngest president ... He was the first baby boomer president." I hope that you will not argue that such a central moment in both Clinton's and America's history should be absent from the summary. Especially considering that

b) You will currently find, in the first paragraph of the summary prefacing the Nixon article, the following: "His resignation came after a loss of support in Congress amidst impending impeachment proceedings related to the Watergate scandal."

• • I realize that you dislike the term, but a double standard is again evident. Maintaining objectivity demands one of the following:

a) Either a reference to Clinton's impeachment – without mentioning either Nixon or Johnson – is reintroduced to the Clinton article's preface, or

b) The reference to impeachment proceedings – by definition of lesser significance than actual impeachment – be (absurdly, in my judgement) removed from the summary of Nixon's presidency.

• • 67.80.7.40 10:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

3. Why do you rationalize:

"Nixon subverted law in ways that are far more complicated and far reaching."

What bearing does this have on the rather objective issue of whether Nixon was impeached or not? Or whether it is appropriate to reference a second president's scandals while ostensibly discussing the first's?

67.80.7.40 11:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

A question as a newbie: Why would adding Vince Foster to the list of Clinton scandals continually be reverted? It seems that it deserves mention and was phrased in a NPOV manner. This repeated expedited removal seems to speak more to POV than anything else, Master Jay... -- 66.82.9.55 06:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

So much for quick answers, or even an answer period. Perhaps this is why so many people are feeling alienated by Wikipedia and Wikipedia is getting so much heat in the public press. Overzealous reverts without any explanation won't help new user adoption any... -- 66.82.9.65 18:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I see that this isn't a new issue here. The introduction mentions that he was "the third-youngest president," and "the first baby boomer president," but not that he was only one of two Presidents to be impeached. The intro to the Andrew Johnson article mentions he was the first to be impeached. The intro to the Richard Nixon article mentions impeachment, even though Nixon was not impeached. Regardless of one's POV about the justification or motivations behind the impeachment, or the conduct that inspired it, to me it seems like it is at least as historically notable as his age on election or his status as a Baby Boomer. Kaisershatner 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

OK I know that this is a big can of worms, but I'm thinking of making some evolutionary rather than revolutionary changes to both of these sections. Healthcare seems ok except that it's fairly short and repetitive, and needs some stylistic work. Welfare reform needs to be explored, too. This was a key turning point in the clinton presidency, and lead to the resignation of at least one cabinet official. You can't talk about Clinton without mentioning his complex, triangular relationship between liberal democrats, congressional (conservative) republicans, and his own administration; simply saying "he supported welfare reform" doesn't do it.

Anyway, I wanted to get some ideas before I made any changes.

Wellspring 14:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone took issue with 'dull' as POV in Clintons 1988 Democratic convention speech. The article needs to convey that it almost sunk his chances. He bombed at the DNC and still managed to come back in 1992, reinforcing the moniker 'Comeback Kid'.

I left out 'dull', I kept 'long' and added uninspring.

What happened to the section of Clinton's bio pertaining to his early life? There is no mention of his parents, Hope AR, etc. Did some vandal delete it? Gilliamjf 13:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know but it should be there, everything that has an ending, has a begining. it is important to understand Clinton's early life in order to understand the rest of his life.

( JJGlendenning 03:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC))

I have returned his early life section, hoping it stays this time. Gilliamjf 18:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Clinton was allergic to beef? Didn't he dine at McDonald's all the time? Honestly, I find this difficult to believe despite the citation. Do we have another citation that isn't from "Doctor Zebra"? Gamaliel 08:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

From an AP article from 1992: "Dr. Kelsy J. Caplinger of the Little Rock Allergy Clinic wrote that Mr. Clinton had 'allergic rhinitis,' and was 'sensitive to house dust, mold, weed pollens, cat and grass pollens.'" Mr. Clinton also had a slight reaction to milk and beef, the doctor wrote. [5] Adjusted the wording and replaced the citation. -- Vary 03:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

We either need reliable sources for these with full context or they need to be taken out. -- 8bitJake 20:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Heh... apparently, we both had the same idea at the same time... I just posted the following under a topic of the same name. (The duplicate topic has been removed):

I like the idea of this section, but the quotes that are actually listed are not attributed to any particular event and tend to be taken completely out of context. It would be good if we could find some better examples for this section. Until then, it seems some of the existing quotes should be removed, if the entire section is not. -- jackohare 21:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I added section factual accuracy dispute flag to the Controversial Quotes Section. These quotes definitely need to be sourced. -- Aeki 17:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that even title "Controversial quotes" is misleading. Except for the "meaning of the word is" line, I don't recall any of the statements making any news or creating any controversy. It's like someone is just saying "Do you know what he said one time? Listen to this." -- Tysto 14:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we should remove them for now, or rename the section to "Quotes". Deckiller 14:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

He is easily the greatest president of the last quarter century. The current quasi-president we have makes him look like a legend. Why can't we pass a law to have him in office for a few more terms?

The 9th paragraph under "Special Events" ends with the line: "He was not tried for or guilty of perjury." I edited in the word "found" in front of guilty, to make it a statement of fact rather than a moral judgement of Clinton's guilt or innocence, but I still have a question about the overall accuracy of the sentence. In the Lewinsky scandal page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal) it says Clinton received an "acquittal for charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in a 21-day Senate trial." Do these sentences not contradict each other? Grandiloquos 14:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Copy of my "Jimmy" Carter discussion... Funny that it happens to Democratic presidents, eh? Who decided that diminuitive "Popular" names are appropriate?:

It is somewhat degrading to presidents Clinton and Carter to place them under articles using their "familiar" names. To put this article under "Jimmy" Carter is entirely inappropriate, notably since other wikipedias use James E. Carter or James Earl Carter. It seems that foreigners have more respect for democratic presidents than we do.

It is also entirely unencyclopedic. We don't place Ernest Hemingway under "Papa" Hemingway, nor Elizabeth II under "Queen Elizabeth". What about "Dick" Nixon, or "Gerry" Ford? "Ron" Reagan? Bastique 14:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Please. In reality, Bill Clinton is known as such in the serious news media - and by the man himself - except when they and he are being really hyperformal, which we don't aspire to. The media does not use "Dick Nixon" or "Ron Reagen" anywhere like as much. This violates longstanding convention. Move it back. Morwen - Talk 14:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

We have a pretty clear guideline on this. Clinton's full name is only ever used in the most formal of settings, and even then he is "William Jefferson Clinton", never "William J. Clinton". This should be moved back to Bill Clinton. android 79 14:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep agree with Android, Bill Clinton is what this president is almost always called, and our article should therefore be under that name. The analogies to Hemingway, Nixon, Ford and Reagan are weak. People commonly refer to those as Ernest, Richard, Gerald and Ronald, Clinton is commonly referred to as "Bill". Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree absolutely. This is a no-brainer for me - it should be at Bill. -- OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact, Clinton is used as the first example of this naming convention on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Examples. I'm moving it back. android 79 14:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Could someone just briefly outline the rationale for this measure? This article isn't vandalized to an extent where admins and diligent users can't handle it. Has there been a spurt of vandalism recently to warrant this? Semi-protection shouldn't be used just because it's there. Thanks. Harro 5 05:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it possible that some people would be interested in the "where are they now" type question about presidential pets, so it's reasonable to report Buddy's death. Nevertheless, we're overdoing it to give the exact intersection at which he was hit and the name of the driver of the car. I've removed these details. Anyone who feels that Wikipedia cannot hold its head up unless it provides this information should feel free to add it to Buddy (dog) (along with finding out what make of car it was, I suppose). JamesMLane 10:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That thread up there seems to be dead, so let me reiterate:

I see that this isn't a new issue here. The introduction mentions that he was "the third-youngest president," and "the first baby boomer president," but not that he was only one of two Presidents to be impeached. The intro to the Andrew Johnson article mentions he was the first to be impeached. The intro to the Richard Nixon article mentions impeachment, even though Nixon was not impeached. Regardless of one's POV about the justification or motivations behind the impeachment, or the conduct that inspired it, to me it seems like it is at least as historically notable as his age on election or his status as a Baby Boomer. Kaisershatner 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page as per the request on WP:RPP. If you need full or semi-protection again please post another request on WP:RPP. Thanks. Izehar 19:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Professor Von Pie, thank you for your recent work to expand this article's information on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And thank you for including references with your more recent edits. They do discuss Clinton's pledge to end the ban on gays in the military. But you already included a note about that earlier in the paragraph. The new claims immediately preceding the references are that 1) Clinton specifically pledged to end the ban by executive order, and 2) that he mentioned Truman's similar order in doing so. But I can't find anything in the two references to support either claim. Am I missing something? -- Allen 01:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I too appreciate the fact that Professor Von Pie got some good sources this time, but I also have a couple problems with the way it is worded now. First, the sources don't prove that Clinton made the promise as an "outreach to gain gay votes and gay campaign contributions". What they do show is that some prominent gay commentators believe that he did this. So it should not be stated as a fact. Second, as you point out, there's nothing in there to show that Clinton pledged to end the ban by executive order. However, I don't think Professor Von Pie is trying to make the claim that Clinton mentioned Truman's similar order. He is saying that gay commentators have mentioned it. Of course, there is no source for that either. - Maximusveritas 01:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)