Talk:Bill Clinton

Worship?

If I were to have landed on earth from another planet, or a distant country, and read this article, I'd assume nearly all the best about B.C. after reading it. The intro itself is filled with superlative adjectives and emphasizes his "accomplishments" based on narrowed polls which really reflect more the economy of the time than the person himself. Where is the personal analysis of said "man?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.172.209.217 (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the BC page could use a section on foreign relations as well as terrorism. It is troubling that no mention is made of his handling of the embassy bombing or his ignorance of Bosnian War Crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgmartz (talk • contribs) 03:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK ?

I don't want to get in a reversion war when I am not an expert on the topic. this edit reverted my earlier reversion. Whywhenwhohow (talk · contribs) and I seem to disagree on this. I will call in some experts on the topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the revert of that contribution which seemed to contain links to very parisan articles. Republican revolution? Other links are not needed as they are in the article already elsewhere. Some stuff seems like it would be uncontroversial to return while other stuff should remain off the page. Please discuss this and not just look outside the article for input before a discussion is actually made here.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd put back the links to lists by age & succession, & the Vietnam link; the Republican Revolution might be a bit POV, but that's how it was characterized & that's when it happened. (Not having read the page, if it's more about why & how than when, I'd delete it, too.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Many of those links violate the guidelines on link clarity, easter eggs, and dates (WP:LINKCLARITY, WP:EGG, MOS:UNLINKDATES). Also, it is not necessary to link American or United States in the English Wikipedia. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Please explain your individual objections to each of the following that I would like to restore to the article:

1. 42nd
2. third-youngest president
3. Senator from New York
4. Governor of Arkansas
5. 1992
6. won control
7. impeached
8. scandal involving a White House intern
9. 2008
10. 2012
11. Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service
12. mayor of Dallas
13. governor of Texas

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Whywhenwhohow, please comment on these items individually by the end of the month or I will do a wholesale reversion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As I have stated on your talk page, I will be reverting these soon since you have failed to respond to my February request to discuss your changes in detail.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I have not been around and just saw your messages. I will try to respond soon. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to be patient.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It has been a month and you have not been willing to discuss your changes. I am about to revert.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I have been patient. I am now going to revert.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Use of sub-articles

This article is almost 150 KBs long, which is 50 KB more than recommended. There are a number of sub-articles pertaining to Clinton, and some of the content should be moved to them while being summarized here. In particular, I would urge that recent content about Clinton's actions be moved to the article Post-presidency of Bill Clinton. pbp 16:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is only 53054 characters of readable prose. The other 100,000 characters are formatting, images, captions, citations and such. The 60-100 kb length is based on readable prose. No further splitting is necessary.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

No mention of Positives on Gay Rights

The article appropriately mentions DOMA and (in what I'd argue is a contextually inappropriate manner, since it fails to describe its nature as a compromise intended as a step toward full integration, after Clinton's attempt at full integration was widely regarded to be doomed due to Congressional opposition) DADT. However, it fails to mention the numerous positive things Clinton did for gay rights. To quote from [entry on] the LGBT rights in the United States page, "[As] President, Clinton issued executive orders banning discrimination based on sexual orientation in the federal civilian workforce and successfully lobbied for a doubling of HIV/AIDS research, prevention and treatment funding at the federal level. He also (unsuccessfully) lobbied for passing hate crimes laws for gays and the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Clinton was the first President to select openly gay persons for Administration positions, appointing over 150 LGBT appointees. The first openly gay US ambassador, James Hormel, received a recess appointment from the President after the Senate failed to confirm the nomination." (The citations for all these claims are listed there in a page that -- full disclosure -- I helped edit.)

These significant positive advances should be mentioned, along with the fact that while (as this article mentions) DOMA may have "strained" Clinton's relationship with the gay community, he still had broad support from gay Americans and gay groups after it (like the Human Rights Campaign and The Advocate Magazine, both of which endorsed him in 1996). Right now it sounds like Clinton's policies toward and relationships with gay Americans was largely negative, whereas the reality is that they were (for their time) moderately positive. (That DOMA would have passed without Clinton's signature, since it was passed by a veto-proof majority, should also been mentioned, though his signing it (of course) had immense symbolic importance.) Steeletrap (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with you that Clinton did many positive things for gay rights. You mention several of them above. Why don't you put these facts in the article and document them. It would be a good addition. As far as being overly negative, I just recorded the facts as they were stated by the participants and some reactions from critics.

Recall that Clinton flatly stated during his campaign that he would overturn "don't ask don't tell", and then broke his promise within a week of inauguration. I like the man. But lets face it—his record during his second term on gay rights is a mixed bag. I did not even mention that Clinton's autobiography omits any reference to his signing of DOMA.Clinton says gays overly critical If Clinton is so proud of his DOMA strategy "as a compromise intended as a step toward full integration", why not mention it in his autobiography? My personal feeling: One expects a George Bush to sign a bill like DOMA. One doesn't expect it of Clinton. The NY Times called it an act of cowardice (cited), and I could not agree more.

When I was adding the DOMA paragraph I considered adding a whole section about gay rights. But I did not do so because if would require a fairly major revision of the format of the whole article. Another problem is that there is a lot of overlap between this article and the article Presidency of Bill Clinton. Perhaps entire gay rights discussion belongs there. The two articles together need a little bit of reformatting.

• • I'm a bit confused. Did I accidentally state above that DOMA was a "step at full integration"? DOMA was just flagrant anti-gay legislation. DADT is a more complicated issue. Let's remember that Clinton -- as President -- advocated for openly gays serving in the military and compromised on DADT when he knew he lacked the Congressional support. His failure to mention DOMA in the biography may reflect poorly on him personally, but it doesn't relate to his actions for gays as President. (And on DOMA, I think we should clarify that it was past with nearly two dozen votes more than it needed for a veto-proof majority; I agree that a veto would've sent an immesnely powerful message, and he was wrong to sign it; but it should be noted that his signature wasn't exactly the deciding factor for DOMA to become law.)Steeletrap (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want to expand and revise the paragraphs on gay rights, I would be willing to help. I agree that more should be said. The recess appointment of James Hormel was (unlike DOMA) especially courageous.--Foobarnix (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This is wrong. Clinton vowed to end the ban on gays in the military! That was a blanket ban on anyone who was gay! Clinton said Don't Ask don't tell don't persue! Previously you could ask and persue and out someone and then they would be kicked out! Clinton's policy was a huge step forward in allowing homosexuals in the military! The negatives was that homosexuality was still banned by the military so more people were removed because of it but the issue was Clinton tried to keep homosexuals in the military and liberalized the policy! Qwerty786 (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Qwerty, do I detect a lack of complete commitment to your ideas when you wrote, "This is wrong"? I notice you ended all of your other sentences with exclamation marks (I can't begin to say how persuasive they make your argument) but you omitted the shouty punctuation in the first sentence. That omission might be a slip that betrays how you won't be there when the chips are down. — O'Dea (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The statement in the talk section was wrong but the article is right. Clinton did not in 1992 vow to repeal DADT but the total ban on gays in the military! DADT was the liberalization. Qwerty786 (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You have avoided the point very successfully!!!!! — O'Dea (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Kosovo was a province of Serbia - Serbia was a republic of Yugoslavia!

Wording indicates too much that Kosovo was not a part of Serbia within Yugoslavia but was a province of Yugoslavia as a whole and not within Serbia as a province! Qwerty786 (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Bye

It seems political experts have arrived to take this to FA. I will be bowing out of watching this page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Photo of the EPA headquarters renaming ceremony

I tried to attend the EPA headquarters renaming ceremony (in honor of Clinton) with camera in hand but I was told that I was not on the list. I had contacted the press office before hand, showed up at the South entrance, and was told I could not attend because I was not on the list. It would have been a great picture but alas to no avail. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Student Council at Georgetown University

This is mentioned, underneath what appears to be a poster for his campaign: "Clinton ran for President of the Student Council while attending the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University." However, there is no mention of it whatsoever in the article itself. If there is information about it that can be properly referenced then it should be included. If not, it should be removed from the sidebar. Lex.shrapnel (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Allegations

OK. I noticed that someone made a bold edit to move a subsection with a non neutral heading to its own section based on their perception that allegations deserve a full section. I would argue they do not, but neither do they deserve a sub section. Highlighting these "allegations" is undue weight. Yes, the word allegation is used in the sources. That isn't the issue. The first source I checked for the first broad claim was not actually supported by the reference. It may well be that a number of edits have taken place that changed the meaning of the prose. But I also have another concern and I will have to do a little reading in the archives to get caught up but...there is an entire article about allegations? really? Uhm...that doesn't sound like that is within our BLP policy. Regardless how famous a person may be, they are still a living person and we should handle each piece of information in as neutral a manner as possible. For now I am going to remove the subsection and rewrite that first line to better reflect the source by adding some balance that wasn't included in the summary of the story used from 1998.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 08:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is the line in question and the reference:

Clinton has been subject to several allegations of sexual misconduct, though he has only admitted extramarital relationships with Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers.

--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 09:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Problem is...that source is from 1998 during the Lewinski investigation and if you read it, there is no admission from Mr. Clinton about Lewinski. The source is also the lawyers of Paula Jones making these sweeping allegations so, basically we would have to clarify this as to how there are allegations in such a manner. The source seemed to be used just to add a reference behind allegations, and as well known as these allegations may be, they are still allegations. I believe something along these lines is more encyclopedic:

In 1998 lawyers for Paula Jones released court documents contending a pattern of sexual harassment by then Governor Clinton. Main lawyer for the President, Robert S. Bennett, called the filing "an organized campaign to smear the President of the United States".

--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 09:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This will rescue the reference but need not be redundant undue weight by adding into the prose.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 09:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Silly me. Multiple alleged sexual assaults by various womens by a president is merely a public image problem. What was I thinking. User:Carolmooredc 12:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the same as you are thinking now...a personal point of view? And yes, it is rather silly. Sarcasm aside, no we don't give undue weight to "allegations" by placing the term in a section and segregating all that negative information into one single section.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 23:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Waitaminute, waitaminute. What does being "allegations" have to do with anything? Personally, I think it's undue weight to just insert three paragraphs of sexual-conduct allegations into the "Public image" section; segregating it out into its own subsection helps compartmentalize it and keeps it from overwhelming the rest of the section. It also facilitates placing a link to Sexual misconduct allegations against Bill Clinton, which is an important subarticle. Powers ^T 12:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. User:Carolmooredc 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Importance is not a factor here. That article is not important and has many issues. I see no reason to link it in the manner that was done as it was undue weight.--Mark 19:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Still a BLP violation to segregate all negative information and the term "allegation" should not be used in the header. How does that effect a link to another page?--Mark 19:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Bill Clinton's Wiki page now has a header above it stating the following:

"This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: There is no section dedicated to, nor even links to the many well documented scandals attached to Bill Clinton, ie Whitewater, Waco, extramarital sexual affairs/harrassment,Jim and Susan MacDougall, Vince Foster, Web Hubbell, Lani Guiner, Zoe Baird, Monica Lewinsky, etc.. Please help improve this article if you can. (August 2013)"

If you read through the page you will find many of these events and people documented through out the page with a few having been hyper linked to send the reader to a wiki page for that particular issue. I believe that this header has been put in place by a person with a negative opinion of the Clinton's. In comparison to George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush you will not find the same headers. The pages are laid out in similar fashion to that of Bill Clinton's page with controversies included in the body but not prominent as a sub section.

I believe that it is necessary to take down this header as it automatically causes the reader to develop an impression of Mr. Clinton before reading the first sentence. If anything this should discussed behind scenes and not directly on the front page until a decision is reached.

Chettmixx (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree.--Mark 19:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Me too -- but it looks like it was already removed by Drmies. -Pete (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep--the editor didn't agree, to put it mildly. Hey Pete, how you doing? Drmies (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Frankly I'm too disgusted to comment much on why the thing that Clinton will be remembered for long after he's dead and the US has dissolved doesn't rate even a subsection under public image. (There should be a "Ciminal allegations" major section for the various ones made.) But if he'd made even one snotty comment against certain powerful minority groups on Wikipedia it would be a big major subsection, as I've seen in so many other articles. Guess the Wikipedia Foundation Gender Gap project to bring more members of the majority sex into Wikipedia isn't doing too well. This sort of thing doesn't help. User:Carolmooredc 13:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Soapbox and smears at "certain powerful minority groups" wink-wink, we can't imagine who you mean, are out of place on this page. They are disruptive. Please stop and discuss content and policy if you disagree with the consensus here. SPECIFICO talk 14:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

POVs that form alleged consensuses are always relevant. See you are still following me to articles you've never edited to direct the same questionable refrains at me, per my July complaint at your talk page. Wikihounding is another reason a lot of women quit Wikipedia. User:Carolmooredc 14:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] You don't speak for all women, User:Carolmooredc. Certainly not this Wiki-loving woman! Now, can we drop the personal banter and get to work on improving this article? Steeletrap (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If you are again insinuating that you will hound me off articles on my watch list due to my gender, you are mistaken and the threat is way out of bounds. SPECIFICO talk 01:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

That'll teach this uppity woman born woman. User:Carolmooredc 04:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Carolmooredc, what exactly are you seeking to emphasize with "woman born woman" in contrast to me? At least have the courage to state an insult plainly. Steeletrap (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Supplied wikilink to feminist phrase. Article does need more refs. User:Carolmooredc 05:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)