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.

Political popularity upon leaving office was higher than Reagan, which makes Clinton the most popular President since Kennedy. This should be noted in the intro, b/c it defines his overall performance as President.

The intro this article is too short. ~ UBeR 22:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In line with the opening introductions of other US presidents articles, I have done a partial rewrite of the opening introduction as well as a new paragraph on his time as President. In the first paragraph I noted his significant role as a new democrat and a third way creator. In the new paragraph I initially summarised his main policy and legislation. This is then followed by mention of significant events - domestic such as oklahoma city bombings and his scandals - Whitewater and Lewinsky, being the most prominent. I then finished the paragraph with info on world events such as Bosnia and his unsuccessful attempt to bring peace to the middle east. I have also edited the last paragraph of the intro making his recent work more clear, as well as commenting on his autobiography. I tried to be objective as well. LordHarris 23:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've kept the part about Clinton's autobiography and humanitarian work untouched. I have shortened the summary of the presidency because it reads like a list and is just too long. The "New Democrat" concept is too complicated to be explained in the intro and should be left for the body of the article. The most significant events in Clinton's presidency was the changing world order and the economic prosperity in the United States. The scandals are really just the background to the impeachment, which is the historically significant bit. IMO, this strikes a better balance between too short and too long, and keeps the intro neutral with plain facts. I'll see if I can work in the legislation and policies without sounding too much like a list. KeL 00:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on the list, good job at the new era wording, it was too long and it does now strike a balance between short and long. Though I dont agree with the "new democrat concept" being too complicated. I think it is one of the major aspects of Clintons life and in lots of books e.g. Clinton Wars, the natural, it is commented heavily by the authors and should be part of the article introduction.

BTW I thought the discussion page was getting long, have created new archive, but have left this one as recent on the talk page. Also there was nothing on oklahoma city bombings on the main article page. If anyone has any reference sources can someone please write a sentance or two somewhere in the main article. As I recall this had a large effect on Clintons presidency and he made a very public speech in the aftermath, at the service held afterwards. LordHarris 01:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the Oklahoma city bombings were in 1995...that would be his first term, not his second as the second paragraph states

I have read the New Democrat addition again and I now agree with you. It's a very important aspect of Clinton's presidency and it's what made him successful. Well done. KeL 01:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Indicating that Clinton was the third-youngest U.S. president and then naming the two younger presidents is correct but begs for fuller edification. May I suggest something on the order: At 46, Clinton was the third-youngest person to serve as president; after President Theodore Roosevelt, age 42, and President John F. Kennedy, age 43. -- Curiouscdngeorge 23:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be too much detail for the introduction, and the information is already available in List of United States presidents by age at ascension to office. And with all due respect, I think the prose of your sentence is terribly inelegant and awkward-sounding. The point is that Clinton is the third-youngest president; that's enough for this article. KeL 00:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Upper case, lower case, which case is capitalized ?

A number of well-meaning wordsmiths are firm about two aspects of capitalization. First, if it refers to the first letter of the first word of any given sentence, then choose upper case. Secondly, if it refers to a title of office, then choose upper case (for that first letter).

For instance, as examples, they might cite:

1a. John Kennedy was the most beloved President of the United States.

2a. Lorraine Hargrave failed in his bid to be Governor of California.

3a. Historians agree that George Washington was the first President of the United States, Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States; but, they do not agree who was greater.

Each instance of capitalizaton, re reasons of title, is incorrect.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book, Associated Press Manual of Style, Chicago Manual of Style, and Guardian Manual of Style, simply being a title is insufficient cause for upper case.

The title must be intimately united to the name of the individual, such that, it constitutes their name and not solely a description of their occupation or function.

So that, in the same examples, these authorities would cite:

1b. John Kennedy was the most beloved president of the United States.

2b. Lorraine Hargrave failed in his bid to be governor of California.

3b. Historians agree that George Washington was the first president of the United States, Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States; but, they do not agree who was greater.

More examples of correct and incorrect usage:

1a. Only when President (correct) Johnson . . .

1b. Only when president (incorrect) Johnson . . .

2a. We'll take this to Governor (correct) Libby, the 3rd governor (correct) of Nevada, . . .

2b. We'll take this to governor (incorrect) Libby, the 3rd Governor (incorrect) of Nevada, . . .

Only when the title is tight with the name and preceeds it, is it capitalized - all other instances, you don't.

Note, I don't hold this because my daddy, mommy, or 3rd-grade teacher, told me so; likewise, I don't hold this because I heard or read "something", "somewhere", about the need to capitalize titles.

Look up any specific American president, English prime minister, or Big Cheese governor or premier, in a reputable reference (as those mentioned), to prove my thinking wrong.

If my understanding is incorrect, please demonstrate in what manner - with a supporting reference - that I can access and verify via the library. Thanks. -- Curiouscdngeorge 23:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we have been through this before, and it really is getting boring. " The correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun." The formal name of the President of the United States is the President of the United States. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Titles. So there you go, I'm reverting your edits. Orangemarlin 23:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style quotes: Titles such as president, king, or emperor start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "De Gaulle was the French president." So that, "President Clinton . . ." and "Clinton was the American president" are each correct. However, "Clinton was the American President" or "Clinton was the 42nd American President" are not correct [Correct: "Clinton was the 42nd American president."] So, according to the Wikipedia Style Manual (and others cited above) the correct reading is: "Clinton was the 42nd American president." Thanks for the reference, I'm glad I'm the one that read it. - Curiouscdngeorge 23:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you failed to read WP:CIVIL. Please read the quote. The formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun. You didn't edit something generic like "Clinton was the 42nd American president" where the capitalization is completely correct. You change, "President of the United States" to "president of the United States." Yeah, I can read. And please be civil. Orangemarlin 00:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin is correct. The relevent part from MOS:CL reads The correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun. Hence: "Hirohito was Emperor of Japan." Similarly, "Louis XVI was the French king" but "Louis XVI was King of France", King of France being a title in that context. KeL 15:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Orangemarlin, for your contribution; but, there are certain statements you made which are in error. I changed "Clinton was the 42nd American President", which is incorrect, to "Clinton was the 42nd American president", which is correct (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style) [it is an error to state I edited otherwise]. With respect to WP:CIVIL, you'll note I thanked you for your reference and stated my satisfaction in being the one that read it. Telling me "yeah, I can read" is something I assumed, but I'm glad for your discovery. But, as KeL's contribution proves, there is a wide margin between being able to read and understanding what one reads. -- Curiouscdngeorge 00:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As for reading and understanding, apparently you missed out on WP:CIVIL. Orangemarlin 03:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you did not make that change. Please review this [ Dif]. So please, I can read, I tell the truth, and I know about what I speak. Orangemarlin 03:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Though it has a citation, the Freemasonry reference in the "Early Years" section seems forced. I am considering removing it as non-notable. Wanted to post this for discussion before doing so. K. Scott Bailey 21:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmn, I might have to delete this comment of yours. -- Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 05:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

So, no defense of why it actually is notable, just a childish threat? If I don't hear a cogent defense of why Clinton not being a Freemason is notable, I will be removing it, your threats aside. K. Scott Bailey 16:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I view deleting comments without notice as childish. That's right, I'm talking about your actions. -- Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

<removed indents>Actually Kscottbailey, you have no right whatsoever to censor anything posted in a discussion section. Please see the following:

Editing others' comments is generally not allowed. Exceptions are:

• If you have their permission
• Removing prohibited material such as libel and personal details
• Removing personal attacks and incivility. Please read WP:ATTACK#Removal_of_text and WP:CIVIL#Removing_uncivil_comments before removing anything.
• Unsigned comments: You are allowed to append —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) or one of its variants to the end of someone's comment if they have failed to sign it. The form is —The preceding unsigned comment was added by USER NAME OR IP ( talk • contribs)., which results in —The preceding unsigned comment was added by USER NAME OR IP (talk • contribs) ..
• Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (If the contribution introduces a new topic.

You'd have a difficult case to make that any of those 4 items were violated. So, please quit deleting or censoring anything written here. Orangemarlin 00:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The commentary that was deleted had nothing to do with the discussion of the article, and just had more to do with some gutter-sniping at the subject matter, so I'd say that it is highly inappropriate for the talk page. If Kscottbailey hadn't removed it, I would have done so myself. Tarc 16:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I second arguments of Tarc above. LordHarris 18:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. But isn't that just censoring, because it relies on your two OPINIONS of the matter? Orangemarlin 18:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Opinion is trifling in the face of the law of the land. Wikipedia policies are the law of the land; end of discussion. I bet if you handed those two the Constitution they'd defile it as if it were a Word document. -- Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of the images need a fair use rationale, or since its showing him in his presidential duties, the license can be changed so a fur is not required. -- Nehrams2020 00:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The main article reads that Jones lawsuit against Clinton was dismissed. This is completely untrue. Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anchovy1 ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 9 March 2007 UTC.

It is quite true, actually. The lawsuit was dismissed, Jones appealed. During the appeals process, the settlement offer was made and accepted. But initially, the case was dismissed. Tarc 21:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is true Here is a good source about its actual dismissal: Onlinew News LordHarris 00:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

talk 16 March 2007

All facts thus far are correct, it is how you look at the facts to know that you all are correct. There was a forced dismissal, that should have never occurred and did. The inevitable was the award and that was something Clinton and his advisors knew they would have to pay prior to the forced dismissal. It was a matter of record that coerced the situations that we finally see. Politics, corruption and bad judgments on the voters part most of the time, when we elect the wrong persons to office.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigsis ( talk • contribs)

I dont see how that comment is relative to anything to do with wikipedia or this article. LordHarris 15:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only is the above comment by Bigsis unsourced and substantially irrelevant, it also a matter of POV. I wonder the same thing about how George Bush got elected twice! Orangemarlin 18:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The article states

his first term also was fraught with difficulties, including an unpopular motor vehicle tax and citizens' anger over the escape of Cuban prisoners (from the Mariel boatlift)

Were these prisoners detained for criminal acts, or refugees awaiting process? This needs clarifying because the Marielitos overwhelmingly belonged to the latter group.-- Zleitzen ^(talk) 16:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,981365-3,00.html LordHarris 17:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As I thought, they were refugees, thanks for the link Lord Harris. The change has been made.-- Zleitzen ^(talk) 06:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

this is one of the worst presidents in US history (in my opinion the worst since Truman) many of the problems e.g. Iraq that are being dealt with by the present government are the result of actions and inaction during the Clinton years, and the article does nothing, nothing to explain why this is the case, there is no drawing together of the multitude of political, sexual and financial scandals that beset the Clinton regime in any meaningful way that can relate to policy issues. while i see that there must be attributable sources surely there has been enuf academic and journalistic interest in clintons problems so that there is something to quote out there on some meaningful hypotheses/theories about why and how things did get so messed up (sometimes only manifesting after he had gone - eg Iraq) Richy-rik 04:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course you are entitled to your view on Clinton but unless you have reputable sources: Wikipedia:Reliable sources to support your views you then making changes to the talk page based on opinion isnt appropriate. Just to note as well - biographies of living people need to conform to neutral points of view. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Furthermore unless you are actually discussing changes to the article, using reputable sources etc, than the talk page isnt a place for your own personal dislikes or likes of the President. Talk pages are not a platform for your personal views: Wikipedia:Talk page. LordHarris 10:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Exchange Clinton's name with a president that you like and see if your post still sounds reasonable. It's a way to check to see if you need sources to support your statement. -- Darth Borehd 04:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

ok thanks for the comments, to try and be more "neutral" then :- i believe this article needs to contain not just a list of Clintons acts but also an analysis of the reasons, overt and covert for those acts and also an analysis of the effects of those acts on in the years after his reign was over.... i do believe that if a person with a detailed knowledge of US political journalism and modern history was to write such a section for the article, even with the neutral POV rule the majority of the sources would point to a critical conclusion as to clintons impact on world affairs.... i guess i am asking for SOMEONE to do this section, whatever the conclusion, i really don't have this source citation knowledge myself and don't have time to research the references.

virtues of current presidents notwithstanding I believe that the worst president may have been Harding who bye the way was largely responsible for the great depression. but blaming Clinton for this current conflict would be like blaming the Kaiser for the holocaust. 72.189.79.72 08:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The article says the Clinton "lied under oath about his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky". This is not technically true and is the source of much debate, about which there is no uniform consensus. The sentence should read "allegedly lied under oath" or "was accused of lying under oath."

Hmmm...Its been a while, but I seem to remember Clinton saying, under oath, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" but later admitted that he did have sexual relations with her. The House impeached him for it, but the Senate did not convict him. While it was not determined in a court of law that he had committed perjury, its generally accepted that he did lie about it, but that the Senate didn't feel that it would warrant his removal from office. How then is this not technically true?-- Mbc ³⁶² 04:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You "seem to remember" incorrectly. That statement was made to the press, not under oath. It is certainly NOT "generally accepted" that he lied under oath. His sworn testimony was technically truthful under the legal definitions Jones' own lawyers proposed for his testimony. If you want to discuss this topic you should, as a start, know something about it. 204.128.192.8 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse me for not remembering correctly something that occurred a decade ago. Now, if you want to discuss anything on Wikipedia, you should probably read up on the ground rules, namely WP:CIVIL.-- Mbc ³⁶² 01:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately for Clinton he did lie under oath about his sexual relations so the sentance is technically correct. However what was and still is open to interpretation is a.) whether his lie constituted an impeachable offence and b.) because it was in regards to his private life (although part of his time in the White House, it did not interfer with his actual job or execuation of official duties). So UserMbc362 is correct - although he had committed perjury (for which I believe he was disbarred as a practicising lawyer) the senate did not warrant that the perjury (or 3 other charges) were sufficient for impeachment. LordHarris 09:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong and wrong. First, by the legal definitions Jones' lawyers requested for his testimony, he did NOT lie about his relations with Lewinsky. Second, he was NOT disbarred for committing perjury as you "believe", but for unspecified "serious misconduct" under the rules of the Arkansas Bar. If you want to discuss this topic you should, as a start, know something about it. 204.128.192.8 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" was not said under oath, and I believe that the House Managers never actually specified any perjurious words in the official charges. Clinton was charged with perjury in front of the grand jury, which was where he ADMITTED his affair. Carlo 20:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed and thats what it currently reads in the article. Though just to make clear, he lied (therefore permitted perjury) before the Grand Jury (which was recored on video and later used in the senate hearings), but later admitted the relationship at a later date. A good book on the whole event is Sidney Blumenthals Clinton Wars - lots of references if someone is interested in addding. LordHarris 21:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually he never could be convicted of perjury in a court since he would have to be proven to knowingly lie. His answer was technically accurate, although deceptive. There is a great deal of debate as to the actual fact of perjury(s). There was actually more than one count that he was charged with, it wasn't just the one statement regarding sexual relations with that woman. Remember all the fuss about sexual relations and how you define it? Well it was legally defined, and according to that definition, Monica performing oral sex on Clinton did not fit (although it would have if Clinton had performed oral sex on her). While this may seem specious, understand this definition was agreed upon by both parties in the lawsuit before Clinton was asked the question under oath. Ironically, if he had said yes he would have perjured himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.173.2.87 ( talk) 03:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree. According to all accounts, the specific legal definition of the word "sex" he asked for and received from the prosecution clearly specified vaginal intercourse as the definition of the word "sex." Therefore, he did not perjure himself. The bar association later charged him with manipulating the court to avoid perjury. They fined him about $100,000 and suspended his license. -- Darth Borehd 03:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked up a reference and changed the language to fit the citation. Maybe not a big deal, but the reference (#12 when I saw it...citation is a Press Conference) says (paraphrased) income over 200k, not wealthiest 1.2%. Are these 2 figures the same? If so, consider adding a 2nd citation linking 200k and 1.2% KMCtoday 18:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert on Bill Clinton, but there seems to be a problem. The article says in the introduction that he was born "William Jefferson Blythe III" with a citation [1], but in the first section of the article, it suggests that he was born "William Jefferson Blythe IV" with the same citation.

Anyone? Rageous 16:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"William Jefferson Blythe III" is the correct one; I went ahead and fixed it.-- Mbc ³⁶² 18:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention of the war in Bosnia or the rocket attack on a Syrian hospital. Both of which were significant events during his presidency. -- Darth Borehd 06:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick mention that this is an article about Clinton himself with only a brief discussion of his time as President. If the events you mention are significant to his presidency/administration etc then I suggest adding them to either Foreign policy of the Clinton Administration or Clinton Administration as these would be more appropriate. Please dont forget to provide valid references/sources WP:REF. Thanks. LordHarris 23:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Would some one please comment on the furniture Clintons took from the White House when they left? Thank you.

I noticed that Monica was on the Sex Scandal list, but not Bill. It takes two to tango, as they say. I have added him, feel free to change it but only if explaining why. CodeCarpenter 16:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree...notice how the word IMPEACHMENT is not very prominent on this page. hello!!! Try and tell me that wasn't a major event. Let's not be blind people and report the facts how they were HE WAS IMPEACHED!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.24.219 ( talk • contribs) 11:40, 15 April 2007

Read the article, please. here's what I see on a quick look: 1) Second paragraph in the lead; 2) its own subsection for trial in this article; 3)discussion in other sections; and - please don't miss this - 4) an additional separate article, wikilinked prominently here, devoted completely to the impeachment. He was governor for 12 years, president for 8 and had a life before and after. The impeachment gets plenty of weight in this article. Tvoz | talk 16:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

he wasn't impeached for having sex, as far as i know thats still legal. sex had so very little to do with the impeachment but if all you remember is from t.v. news... well sex sells 72.189.79.72 09:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User Hetfield1987 has indicated he believes the article is too long (but has not noted that here in the discussion section.) I suggest that the article is roughly the same length as both Clinton's immediate predecessor and successor and this tag be removed until a consensus to include it is reached. (And that Tarc is right, this is a non-NPOV drive-by tagging) Gruber76 17:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Further, I did a check and the "readable prose" on this article is actually only 39K, so it's very close to guidelines anyway. See Wikipedia:Article size#What is and is not included as "readable prose". Tvoz | talk 21:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is 70 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size -- Hetfield1987 ( Wesborland | James Hetfield) 22:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice the section of Wikipedia:Article size that details why that 70k number is not the one you judge article length by? Tarc 23:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Tarc is right - the link is posted directly above Hetfield in this section. The article's readable prose is 39K. Tvoz | talk 23:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the article I can see some instances where the size could be reduced by splitting up the article. I think the honours section could be moved to a new article, similar to Honours of Winston Churchill. I also think that Clintons post presidential section could be moved to a new article. Thoughts? LordHarris 23:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't personally see the need to do so. The more fragmented articles are, the less likely a reader is really getting a full picture. I particularly don't like the idea of separating out the post-Presidential section - it is ongoing, and I don't think should be in effect a footnote to this article. Tvoz | talk 00:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hetfield1987, while you regularly edit George W. Bush's page, this "too long" and the one on Al Gore's page are the only edits you've made to these pages. The George W. Bush page is of a similar size--this gives the appearance that this concern is a non-NPOV concern. If that's just an error in my perception, my apologies. What separate articles would you suggest? Gruber76 02:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

if it is to be reduced in length then splitting is the only way as Clinton is a very important topic, with a high degree of dispute involved... it merits a lengthy treatment. already i note there are 32 articles listed under Category:Bill_Clinton [ [1]] and another 2 in a subcategory (?is this subcategory is necessary can't these articles be in the main clinton category.

my main point is it would be nice to see more prominence give to the Category:Bill_Clinton [ [2]] in the main Bill Clinton article (this one) - ie it should be at the top, as there is so much additional material there.) Richy-rik 22:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it not notable that he was the first U.S. president to visit Vietnam?-- M a s 06:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have a reference then I suggest placing in in Foreign policy of the Clinton Administration. LordHarris 15:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought the authors of this article would like to hear of this review of the article. In an attempt to judge the reliability of Wikipedia, The Denver post asked 5 experts to review wikipedia articles, including this one [3].

The review has the following to say about this article:

Bob Loevy, a political science professor at Colorado College and frequent writer on Bill Clinton, said the President Clinton entry was thorough and unbiased, giving fair weight to both Clinton accomplishments and scandals. The bulk of it appeared to have been written by the Clinton Museum and Library in Little Rock, Ark., Loevy said.

It would have been a great place for a student to begin building his or her knowledge" on Clinton, Loevy said. As did the other professors, Loevy said he cautions his students to treat Wikipedia like any other single book in the library - any fact cited there should be double-checked somewhere else.

Jens Nielsen 15:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed the back-handed-compliment that “it looks like it was written by the Clinton Library” means it looks like it was written by an source affiliated with Clinton.

Actually, this looks like it’s an insult to the Clinton Library. The Clinton Library wrote in a short one-page biography:

In 1998, his relationship with a young White House intern resulted in the President’s impeachment by the House of Representatives. A trial in the Senate found the President not guilty of the charges brought against him. President Clinton apologized for his conduct and vowed to keep working as hard as he could for the American people. As a result, Bill Clinton left office with historically high approval ratings for the job he had done as the 42nd President of the United States.

http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/bios-WJC.html

which is also on the official white house page

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html

while the much longer Wikipedia article only has the same length and blames the Republicans in EVERY sentence.

On January 21, 1998, a controversy was raised by the media and prominent Republicans[29] over Clinton's relationship with a young White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, resulting in the Lewinsky scandal. In a lame duck session after the 1998 elections, the Republican-controlled House voted to impeach Clinton for matters relating to the scandal. The Republican-controlled Senate then voted to acquit Clinton the following year, and he remained in office to complete his term.[30] Undog 04:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

On the page, where it says his birth date it says:

Born: August 19, 1946 (age 60)

74.92.251.34 16:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Age 60 is his current age, its in brackets and so is seperate from born date. He is 61 in August. LordHarris 15:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made several large edits and thought I would just explain here. Ive reorganised the post presidential section so its now a lot more clear and makes sense. I have removed a lot of repeated information and changed the style of some sentances. Ive added about twenty references and have expanded some sections, adding info on Clinton and his wives candidacy for democratic nom for example. Hopefully the article now seems a lot more organised, referenced etc. LordHarris 16:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is undergoing reevaluation for its current GA status. Happyme22 04:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The picture has Bentsen as Tres. Sec., and therefore should not say 1997. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.2.72.220 ( talk) 19:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Corrected to 1993. LordHarris 20:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Article now reads "Though initially well-received in political circles, it was ultimately doomed by well-organized opposition from conservatives, the American Medical Association, and the health insurance industry."

Isn't this just opinion? http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/20starr.html What kind of magazine is "American Prospect"? It says..."health care reform dead. The funeral was private; no crowds gathered in mourning.............the complexity of the plans and onslaught of criticism had even left many supporters bewildered and uncertain.

So should we list opponents included bewildered supporters?

I don't know the answer but I think the current wording is not completely correct and smells of some kind of bias. Chergles 01:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The health care reform program was doomed by opposition and poor organisation on the part of the Clinton Administration. There is a whole section on this in the neutral account by Joe Klein. I will use the book to rewrite the section and add references in the near future. LordHarris 12:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

(Not sure this is in the right place - I'm a novice at this) One thing that jumped out at me immediately when I came (I wanted to check on his age) was that the article lists him as "Preceded by George H. W. Bush Succeeded by George W. Bush" when it is should be the other way around 72.160.72.166 16:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Denis

(I added a header for you. An easy way to add new discussion sections is to click on the "+" up top next to "edit this page", that'll create it for you.)

Anyways, how its worded is correct, unless I'm missing something. George Herbert Walker Bush (aka Bush Sr.) is the father who was president before Clinton, and his son George Walker Bush (aka W) came after. Tarc 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Preceded = before

succeeded = after

72.189.79.72 09:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I added Ann Coulter's book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors to the popular books section, under Further reading. This was reverted by user Gdo01 with a note of "Ann Coulter is not Bill Clinton". I do not think this is a valid reason (nor do I quite understand it).

The Ann Coulter book is relevant, she is a legal professional, and there are similar (albeit different) books listed in this same section. I believe this book deserves a link. - Ajmastrean 17:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter is hardly a legal professional. My personal bias aside, she is extremely partisan, and as such, does not belong as a source. ( 69.140.166.42 02:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

I am not referencing her as a source in the article or in the "References" section. Ann Coulter graduated from law school and worked as a clerk for an appeals court judge, an attorney in private practice, on the Senate Judiciary Committee, as a litigator, and as a legal correspondent. Her credentials are, arguably, above discussion. The book was a best seller, read: popular. And, there are other books in that section "critical" of Bill Clinton.

I will continue to add her book to the popular book section unless someone can reasonably discuss how it is

• not relevant to the Bill Clinton article
• not a popular book

I think some of you have personal problems with Ann Coulter. Get over it.

- Ajmastrean 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are already critical books listed, penned by reliable authors and journalists. A sensationalist piece by the talking head bigot-du-jour of the far right is the last thing that should appear in this article. Tarc 21:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The argument continues to get further and further from the original issue. Ann's books are well researched, referenced, and supported by other authors and public figures. Show me, credibly, that her material is false. I have already been over her professional/legal credentials, she is more than a talking head. Also, what if she is a bigot? The book section contains mash notes from leftists and neutral historical accounts, why should a right viewpoint be prohibited? - Ajmastrean 21:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Truths and falsehoods are irrelevant. The issue is, is this book and/or its author relevant? I would say that a tv talking head is not at all relevant; she simply isn't a professional by any stretch of the imagination. Just because she doesn't like Clinton doesn't make her or the book notable. Tarc 21:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

tall sickingly thin blond radical right nutjob- coulter

short slovenly fat brown haired radical left BS factory- michael moore

i would no more want him on a GWB article than i want her on Clintons

by the way just because somethings popular dosent mean its good or accurate. in fact i bet there are roughly the same number or more users of heroin in the world than there are readers of her books. 72.189.79.72 10:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

By a vote of 5-1, this article shall keep Good Article status. The review discussion can be seen here. Regards, LaraLove ^T/ _C 05:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel that it should be mentioned that he engaged in anal-oral contact with Monica Lewinksy. This is in the Starr report and I feel that it was important that the people know that their president was committing these acts which at the time were illegal in Texas until Lawrence v. Texas.-- William Henry Harrison 19:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Bill Clinton and Monica were not in Texas at the time, but in Washington, were sensible laws (and people) allow a variety of sexual acts between CONSENTING ADULTS. LordHarris 21:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2316200920070523

I would like this to be added under 'Honors and accolades' or where ever appropriate.

The first sentence of this article refers to Bill Clinton as GCL, referring to an honor he received from the government of Papua New Guinea. However, even though other presidents such as Eisenhower and Reagan have received honors from other countries which would entitle them to postnominal letters, those honors are mentioned much further down in their articles, not in the first sentence. In fact, no other 20th-century president has any foreign honors identified by postnominal letters in the introduction to his article, and Clinton is not referred to as "Bill Clinton, GCL" in his own country's media or any other normal context in the United States, as far as I know. I would recommend removing the Papua New Guinea GCL from the first sentence and listing it under Clinton's honors and awards only. -- Metropolitan90 07:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we get some sort of attribution on this inflammatory, idiotic Rush Limbaugh-like claim? Wikipedia really needs to remove the lies and Fox/Rush/Drudge propaganda that the winguts routinely insert in various articles on this site. Otherwise Wiki will have zero credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.155.6 ( talk) 21:20, 29 May 2007

Follow the source given [4] at the end of that sentence, and you will see that the text is supported and sourced. Might be a good idea to word it better to sound less weasel-ish though. Tarc 22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is so full of left wing POV pushing it reads like it was taken from his autobiogrophy, BLP is one thing, but why are there NO notable cirtisms present? --— (Kepin) ^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 17:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Says the person who just blanked the criticism section from George W. Bush. [5] - auburnpilot talk 17:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a valid argument--— (Kepin) ^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 17:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bill_Clinton#Controversies is quite lengthy already, with links to articles that cover the controversies in greater detail. If you wish to add to verifiable content that is reliably sourced to the section, then by all means do so. if you're hoping to see things like the "Clinton Body Count" [6] listed though, I think you're in for some serious disappointment. Tarc 18:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'M getting so tired of saying this WIKIPEDIA IS FOR FACTS. period. if you cant handle your facts without a right wing bias then watch fox news. if you cant handle them with out the left watch cnn or most local news sources. but for the love of his noodled appendages stay off my wiki! 72.189.79.72 09:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's ironic that the article connects a tax rise on wealthy Americans to economic progress. It would be safer to connect the economic growth to, say, the rise of the Internet, considerable technological advances, and increased worker productivity. Safest of all, the economic recovery began before Bill Clinton assumed office. Jessemckay 20:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The article does no such thing. Please don't politicize the talk page. Silly rabbit 20:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly, it does. This definitely needs to be changed. As you rightly say, the economic expansion was likely due in part to externalities beyond the scope of tax legislation. Silly rabbit 21:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There's some mention of deficit reduction and the surplus in the article. There's no doubt that the 1993 Omnibus Reconciliation Act lowered the deficit, which in turn reduced debt interest. This is likely to boost the economy. Most economists understand this, including Greenspan:

"I think it is important that some major credible deficit reduction bill be passed. ... I fear that (without it), the markets would respond in a negative fashion, Greenspan said.

A package that lowered the five-year deficit reduction target from $500 billion to $400 billion, for example, would lack credibility, he said. If the financial markets become convinced that Clinton and Congress will not achieve meaningful deficit reduction, they are likely to force long-term interest rates higher as insurance against future inflation.

"If the markets perceive that we are backing off the size of the commitment, I think that they will react appropriately negatively, because it is suggesting that the will of the Congress and the administration to carry forward, to finally bring this process to success requires something large, Greenspan said.

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N30/budget.30w.html

Therefore, the article should include this connection.

Fom what I've seen, there's little in this article about the economic record. There's no mention of the 3.7% real GDP growth average.

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

Nothing about a job growth of 20 million:

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm

Compared to Wikipedia articles on other president's this article is currently lacking. Gmb92 05:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)gmb92

Clinton voluntarily suspended his law license for five years. When threatened with disbarment by the supreme court, he surrendered his credentials to avoid that result. Clinton has never been disbarred, so that heading and section need to be corrected. See the discussion in the disbarment topic for more on this. -- 69.208.244.188 22:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The sources of the section do not seem to support this assertion, noting that Clinton was disbarred in Arkansas for five years, while resigning before a similar action could be taken by the Supreme Court. Tarc 01:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The article currently reads

"In a separate case, Clinton was disbarred from his Arkansas law license for five years and ordered to pay $25,000 in fines to that state's bar officials..."

Can this be changed to "In a separate case investigating his conduct in the Paula Jones trial, Clinton was disbarred..."?

I don't think it's controversial or puts Clinton in a worse light, but does clarify that this was not a random/unrelated investigation. Lightwiki 14:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

I agree, it should be changed to above, to clarify. Part of the settlement for his conduct in the Jones trial, was a voluntary suspension of his law license. LordHarris 07:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The Public Image section reads:

As the first Baby Boomer president, Clinton was the first president in a half century not shaped by World War II. The public image of Clinton was important throughout his presidency and his innovative use of sound-bite-ready dialogue, personal charisma and public perception orientated campaigning, is often cited as one of the major reasons for his high public approval ratings.[60][61]

This is PoV, is it not? The implication is that Clinton was popular mainly because of a public image campaign and "sound-bite-ready" dialogue. I can reference a source that shows the public perception campaign of his successor being far more sophisticated yet has yielded little long-term results. Regardless, this is PoV. The next sentence reads:

With his pioneering use of pop culture in his campaigning, such as playing the saxophone on The Arsenio Hall Show, Clinton was sometimes described as the "MTV president".[62]

If you look at the source for this, the only reference to "MTV president" is as follows:

Religious conservatives see Clinton as the MTV president who rubs elbows with the Hollywood and Manhattan elite they consider responsible for an increasingly vulgar and sexually obsessed culture. At the same time, Clinton's defenders see his enemies as religious zealots or moralistic bigots who want to impose their Victorian standards on the rest of society.

So perhaps this should be qualified with "religious conservatives" if mentioned at all. Gmb92 15:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)gmb92

There are other non conservative sources that cite clinton as 'mtv president' and ill look them out over the next few days. As for the public image section, it does not read pov, since the sources, both of which are from published professional mainsteam journalists - Martin Walker, Clinton: the President they deserve, Fourth Estate 1999, Bob Woodward, The choice: how Clinton won, Touchstone 1996, ISBN  0-684-81308-4. However I think what is needed is some balance, so perhaps you should also write an additional sentance, adding the reference source you say you have. This would seem a balanced approach. LordHarris 17:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The reference I have is related to GW Bush's presidency and doesn't directly apply here. The point is that every president makes a concerted effort around public image and engages in "sound-bite ready dialogue". This is not unique to the Clinton administration, yet this is the only Wikipedia article on a president I've seen that mentions it. The assertion that Clinton was popular because of this is POV, no matter who it's coming from. At least cite the page numbers in the references on this topic.

More information on the "MTV President" is needed. Currently, the reference cited makes the article's statement misleading. When I google the term and "Clinton", WorldNetDaily shows up first. Gmb92 06:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)